Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CONNAH'S QUAY GAS BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

JEWISH COLONIZATION ASSOCIATION BILL [Lords]

Read a Second Time, and committed.

KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION (DEVELOPMENT, &C.) BILL [By Order]

Second Reading deferred till the Third Sitting Day after 2nd April.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN AND PORTUGAL (WOLFRAM EXPORTS)

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare how long the negotiations have now proceeded with the Spanish and Portuguese Governments for the cessation of wolfram shipments to Germany; and whether meanwhile those countries continue to provide Germany with 40 and 50 per cent., respectively, of her total wolfram supplies.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): The present negotiations with the Spanish and Portuguese Governments have been in progress for about two months, during which period I understand that no exports of wolfram have been authorised by the Spanish Government. Exports from Portugal to Germany have continued at approximately the same level as in 1943.

Mr. Strauss: Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that these exports of this vital war material from our Portuguese Ally have already caused the death of thousands of our soldiers, and if con-

tinued at the present rate, which is about 20 times greater than before the war, will greatly help the enemy in resisting forth-coming operations?

Mr. Foot: I agree that these exports are of very considerable value to the German war machine.

Mr. Shinwell: If that is so, why this tenderness towards these people? What has gone wrong with the Government? Why cannot they act towards Portugal, as they occasionally act towards the House of Commons?

Mr. James Griffiths: What steps are being taken, in view of the fact that the steps already taken have been inadequate?

Mr. Foot: Ever since 1940, we have, in fact, secured very much larger supplies of wolfram from Portugal than the enemy. I also wish to make it clear that we are far from being satisfied with the present position. We have made our views perfectly clear to the Portuguese Government and I hope that these Questions will make clear to them the views of the House of Commons.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it enough that Members of this House should put Questions, in order to stimulate Portugal? Is it not the job of the Government to do the stimulating?

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we have had these answers for a considerable time, and nothing has been done?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the relatives of British prisoners, confined in Bremen-Oslebshusen, are worried that the prisoners do not receive sufficient food; if he will inquire into this matter and also ascertain whether these men receive Red Cross parcels.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): Three British prisoners of war are serving terms of penal servitude in this military prison. A representative of the Protecting Power visited them in January and found that they were receiving the same food as the other prisoners there, but no Red Cross parcels. My hon. and gallant friend is no doubt aware that


under the Geneva Convention prisoners of war are subject to the regulations and orders in force for the Armed Forces of the Detaining Power, but efforts are nevertheless being made to improve the position of these three men.

Sir A. Knox: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when this representative of the Protecting Power visited this prison, he definitely stated that the food was insufficient? Could representations be made to increase the amount of the food, and also if possible will the right hon. Gentleman arrange that this camp should be supplied with Red Cross parcels?

Sir J. Grigg: That is the purport of my answer, but the only possible way of making one's will entirely effective, is to beat Germany.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALIAN PRISONERS OF WAR (USE)

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to make a statement about the future use of Italian prisoners of war.

Sir J. Grigg: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that eight months have passed since the collapse of Fascism, and that it is time some decision was made?

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, I am aware of that. I am doing my best.

Oral Answers to Questions — OPERATIONS, BURMA (BRITISH AND U.S. TROOPS)

Captain Longhurst: asked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of the troops operating in the force commanded by Major-General Wingate and Colonel Cochran are British, and what percentage American.

Sir J. Grigg: These troops are predominantly British but as the operations are in progress I regret that I cannot give any further details.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

War Decorations and Medals

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the

parents and wives of those who have lost their sons and husbands are anxious to know if they will receive the war-service decorations and medals that would have been given to the Service men; and will he make a statement upon this.

Sir J. Grigg: Campaign medals will be manufactured after the war. In the case of an officer or man who has been killed the medals will be sent to the person named in his will as the person who should receive them. If he has not made a will they will be sent to the next-of-kin in the order of relationship laid down in the Regulations made under the Regimental Debts Act.

Mr. Tinker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, as a lot of feeling is being caused among people who have lost husbands or sons about whether these decorations and medals would be passed on to them or not. That answer will give them satisfaction.

Long Service and Good Conduct Awards

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the Long Service and Good Conduct Medal for sailors awarded after 15 years service with a grant of £20 and an increase of pension at the end of service, but that a similar medal for soldiers is awarded after 18 years' service with a grant and no addition of pension at the end of service; awl if he will raise the conditions of the Army award to those of the Navy award.

Sir J. Grigg: The Army and Navy codes differ in various ways, the advantage lying sometimes with the one and sometimes with the other. The difference to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers cannot be considered in isolation, and in present circumstances I am not prepared to make any change in the benefits attaching to the Army award.

Sir I. Fraser: Is not this one of those small matters which quite a modest cutting of red tape would put right; and would it not give satisfaction out of all proportion to the amount of work involved, to assimilate the conditions for similar medals?

Sir J. Grigg: I understand that similar claims have been made on behalf of sailors for amelioration in respects in which the Admiralty regulations appear


to be less favourable than those of the Army. It is not a question of cutting red tap. To assimilate the Regulations of the three Services is a very burdensome business.

A.T.S. Personnel (Smoking)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War why restrictions have been imposed on the liberty of A.T.S. personnel to smoke when off duty.

Sir J. Grigg: A memorandum was recently issued which was intended to amplify the section in A.T.S. Regulations of 1941 'which lays down that "smoking in the street is forbidden," The object of this regulation was to ensure that the appearance of the auxiliaries did credit to their Service. Whether this object can best be secured by detailed instructions, or by relying on the good sense of the auxiliaries is a matter of opinion.

Mr. Driberg: Would it not be better to rely on their good sense and discretion, as in the case of the other women's Services?

Sir J. Grigg: I had hoped I had so drafted my answer, that a wink would be as good as a nod to the hon. Member.

Mr. Shinwell: Why should there be any discrimination between men and women in. the Forces as regards smoking in the street? Why do not the Government get on with the war, instead of indulging in these pettifogging regulations?

Sir J. Grigg: The regulations were made in 1941, and the hon. Gentleman's question might have been more properly addressed to my predecessor.

Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that because regulations were made in 1941, the right hon. Gentleman discards his responsibility in the matter? Is he not Secretary of State for War, and was he not in fact responsible for administration a the War Office at that time?

Sir J. Grigg: I am quite clear that it would be in accordance with the general sense of the public, that A.T.S. should not wander about the streets smoking.

Hon. Members: Nonsense.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Is not the cigarette a social solvent, and should it not be encouraged?

Personnel, Middle East (Home Transfers)

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for War when it is intended to bring home Army personnel who have been in the Middle East since the early days of the war; and is he aware of the need, in the interests of health, to bring these men home in the summer months.

Sir J. Grigg: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) on 22nd February. As to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, these men are necessarily brought home as and when the shipping is available.

Mr. Mathers: What period have these men now, to serve before they are considered fully qualified; and has account been taken of the desirability of bringing them home from a hot climate, while we are approaching warmer weather here?

Sir J. Grigg: The second part of that question contains precisely the same point as that dealt with in my answer. With regard to the first part, I explained that the qualifying period for re-transfer to the home establishment has now got down to five years in India, as elsewhere. But I am certain that if it is a question of men waiting until climatic conditions are suitable to come home they would prefer to come home at the wrong season of the year, instead of waiting.

Mr. Mathers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men understood that they were being brought home during this summer, and that the period now seems to have been extended?

Sir J. Grigg: Certain progress is being made in catching up the lag in the operation of the scheme in India, compared with its operation elsewhere. We are doing the best we can with the shipping available, when operational needs permit.

Mr. Astor: Are there rest camps in the mountains of Lebanon to which the men in Palestine can go when necessary?

Sir J. Grigg: The hon. Member had better put that question down. I am afraid I do not carry all the details in my mind.

Tanks

Mr. Hammersley: asked the Secretary of State for War whether British Valentine tanks have been used by the


Russians in action with their armoured divisions; and whether he has received any reports on the rôle in which these tanks have been engaged in Russia.

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir. British Valentine tanks have been used with Russian armoured formations in action against the enemy. Our reports indicate that they have been employed in normal tank roles, and have given satisfaction.

Mr. Hammersley: asked the Secretary of State for War why the Centaur tank has been removed from the secret list; why it has been exhibited in "Salute the Soldier" demonstrations; and why has the sergeant in charge been allowed to give a description of the tank for publication in the Press.

Sir J. Grigg: The Centaur, mounting a 6-pounder gun, has been removed from the secret list because it is now being used for training. Photographs of it may be published in the Press, but no description of it may be given beyond the fact that it is a cruiser tank, mounting a 6-pounder gun. I understand that the sergeant referred to in the Question went no further than to give an estimate of its weight.

Mr. Hammersley: Does that mean that the Centaur tank is not being used as a fighting tank?

Sir J. Grigg: The hon. Member had better put that down.

Fire-Fighting Practice (Injured A.T.S. Personnel)

Mr. Hammersley: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any report to make on a fire-fighting practice on 22nd March, of which he has been informed, as a result of which a number of A.T.S. personnel were taken to hospital; whether he has any information as to the type of bombs used during the practice; whether a court of inquiry has been ordered; and what steps he is taking to prevent a recurrence of similar incidents.

Sir J. Grigg: In order to make the firefighting practice, in which incendiary bombs were being used, more realistic, the instructor set off a smoke generator and some thunder flashes. A number of the auxiliaries were overcome by the combination of fumes, and were admitted to hospital. I am glad to say they have

now all returned to duty, after a period of leave. A court of inquiry has been held into this unfortunate incident. The use of the smoke generator indoors is contrary to existing instructions, and I am considering whether any further steps are necessary to prevent a recurrence.

Mr. Hammersley: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the information, might I ask whether any steps are being taken to ensure that the medical records of these personnel are suitably marked, in case of after-effects on their health?

Sir J. Grigg: I have not the slightest doubt that they will be, but I will verify that.

Personnel, India (Compassionate Leave)

Mr. Burke: asked the Secretary of State for War the procedure adopted in deciding claims for compassionate leave made by serving personnel in India.

Sir J. Grigg: If there are strong compassionate grounds for an officer or other rank of the British Army to return to this country from India, the facts of the individual case should be brought before the War Office by the man's relatives in this country, or before the military authorities in India by the man himself The final decision in either case rests with the military authorities in India, who must, of course, take into account the military situation.

Mr. Burke: Why does it so frequently take abnormally long for a decision to be given? Obviously, these cases are urgent, yet some take nine months to decide.

Sir J. Grigg: There are certain difficulties about communication with India, as the hon. Member knows; but if he has a specific case or cases which seem to him to have been unduly delayed, perhaps he will bring them to my notice.

Mr. Burke: There are in the right hon. Gentleman's Department now particulars of a case on which, after nine months, no decision has been reached.

Sir J. Grigg: Perhaps the hon. Member will remind me of that case.

Mr. T. Brown: Can the right hon Gentleman not speed up these cases, which are reported to him from time to time and on which, after nine or ten months, there is no definite decision?

Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly do my best, but, as I said, the final decision is with the authorities in India.

Territorial Efficiency Decoration

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will recommend that a clasp to the Efficiency Decoration be issued in respect of service in the Territorial Army further to that for which an Efficiency Decoration has already been awarded.

Sir J. Grigg: Such a change in the Warrant, even were it desirable, could only be made in agreement with the Governments of the Dominions, and I hope my hon. Friend will agree with me that this is hardly a time to approach them with such a proposal.

Mr. Turton: Surely 40 years' service should be recognised? Cannot the matter be raised with the appropriate Dominions?

Sir J. Grigg: Without arguing the merits of the case, I honestly think that at this time we must put first things first.

Operations, Italy (Press Reports)

Mr. Granville: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is satisfied that the reports of the official war correspondents on the military situation at the Anzio and Cassino fronts now represent, on the whole, an accurate picture of the military operations in that theatre of war.

Sir J. Grigg: Generally speaking, Yes, Sir.

Mr. Granville: Why do the British war correspondents continue to protest vehemently against the official coloration and direction of the reports which they send, while the American war correspondents are giving full accounts of the fighting in Anzio?

Sir J. Grigg: I am not aware of any recent protests of that kind.

Mr. Granville: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his Press department on the protests made by the British war correspondents about the coloration and direction given from the back areas?

Sir J. Grigg: Naturally, I did not draft this answer without consulting my officials.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION (FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS)

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to state the decision of the Government regarding the financial provision to be made for members of the Forces on demobilisation, in view of the fact that there are a number of men already involved who are suffering hardship from want of financial assistance to enable them to engage in their former civilian activities.

Sir J. Grigg: I would refer my hon. Friend to the passage in the Prime Minister's broadcast on 26th March in which he explained that he was not in favour of disclosing our plans for demobilisation at the present time.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: While quite appreciating the point of the Prime Minister's statement, may I ask my right hon. Friend does he not think there are distinct hardships for men who are demobilised at the present time, owing to illness or disabilities which prevent them from continuing in the war? Is it not very hard on those men if no financial provision is made for them, and if they have to wait until the end of the war before they can start their ordinary occupations?

Sir J. Grigg: While not necessarily agreeing with the suggestion of my hon. Friend, I can say that it certainly is a question which we have very much in mind.

Mr. Petherick: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the time these gratuities are needed is on discharge, and not necessarily after the war?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Prime Minister whether a bonus will be given to members of the Armed Forces on demobilisation in order to place them in the same position as civilians who have saved out of the comparative high wages being earned in industry; and, if so, what will be the approximate amount of this bonus.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): His Majesty's Government do not consider the present as being a timely occasion for discussing the demobilisation plans.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROTECTED AREAS (ORDERS)

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Secretary of State for War why, having regard to the fact that the purport of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Protected Areas Orders (Nos. 301/s12, 302/s13, 303/s14, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308) are identical and only differ in respect of the areas scheduled, he did not, in the interest of paper economy, have issued one Order with a comprehensive Schedule.

Sir J. Grigg: It is desirable, in the interests of the Armed Forces, to prevent lateral movement in the coastal areas concerned, and it was, therefore, decided that there should be eight separate protected areas. Persons resident in one area are not entitled to enter any of the other areas, unless they belong to one of the exempted or permitted classes of persons, and it was hoped to emphasise this by having a separate Order for each.

Sir H. Williams: Surely it would be quite easy to have eight Schedules. Why waste all this paper?

Sir J. Grigg: I, personally, think that my explanation was quite a good one; but if the hon. Member does not like that answer, I will give him another one, which is that Homer, unlike the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), sometimes nods.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Output

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, for the six months ended 31st December, 1943, the output of saleable coal per man-shift; and how this figure compares with the corresponding figures for the six months ended 31st December, 1942 and 1941, respectively

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): The provisional figure of output of saleable coal per man-shift worked during the last six months of 1943 is 1.03 tons. Comparable figures for the last six months of 1942 and 1941 are 1.03 tons and 1.05 tons respectively.

Flight-Lieutenant Raikes: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, in view of the statement in the White Paper on coal, dated June, 1942, that output could be

increased by concentrating the available men and machinery on the more productive pits and seams, what number of men and machines, respectively, have been transferred by the regional controllers in pursuance of this policy.

Major Lloyd George: In pursuance of the policy of concentration referred to, it is estimated that about 11,500 men and about r50 machines have been transferred to more productive pits and seams.

Wages

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he can give any estimate of the annual cost of the increases in wages resulting from the recent agreement to accept the Government's proposals for the overhaul of the wage structure in the coal industry; and what increases this cost and the cost of the Porter Award, respectively, will cause in the price of coal to the consumer.

Major Lloyd George: As regards the first part of the Question, the ascertainment of the appropriate percentage additions for each district, which the two sides of the industry asked me to undertake, is not yet complete, and until it is and certain additional information is available from the districts, a full estimate of the increase will not be possible. As regards the second part of the Question, the cost of the Porter minimum wage award is estimated at about £5,000,000 per annum, which is equivalent to approximately 6d. per ton for annual supply tonnage.

Flight-Lieutenant Raikes: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power for the period July to September, 1943, the wages bill of the coal industry; the output of saleable coal; and the average number of persons employed.

Major Lloyd George: Information as to the wages bill for the whole of the coal mining industry is not available. Returns made in connection with the wages ascertainments relating to undertakings accounting for 96 per cent. of the total output show that the wages paid by those undertakings during the September quarter of 1943 were £42.75 million (excluding the value of allowances in kind which amounted to £1.29 million). The saleable coal output at these collieries was 45,279,000 tons and the average number of persons employed 667,200. The


estimated saleable output of the industry as a whole during the same period was 46,468,000 tons and the average number of wage-earners on colliery books was 704,100.

Necessitous Undertakings (Northumberland)

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the number of colliery undertakings in Northumberland scheduled as necessitous; how much was paid to them from the Coal Charges Fund and the amounts received, respectively.

Major Lloyd George: There are five colliery undertakings in Northumberland which have been dealt with as necessitous. Payments made to these five undertakings out of the Coal Charges Account by way of War Emergency Assistance have amounted to A;238,000 up to the end of February, 1944. The amount paid into the Coal Charges Account by undertakings in Northumberland during this period was approximately £3,250,000, of which these undertakings contributed about £370,000.

Mr. Taylor: Will the Minister answer the latter part of the Question?

Major Lloyd George: Does the hon. Member mean each of the five? I have a list here, and I shall be happy to give it to him afterwards.

Mr. Foster: Is not this fund contributed by the general public, on the increased price of coal, and not by the coalowners?

Major Lloyd George: It is put on the price of coal.

Mr. Mathers: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman circulate the particulars asked for in the Question, in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Major Lloyd George: I have no objection.

Mechanisation

Flight-Lieutenant Raikes: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the percentages of the total output of coal that are mechanically cut and conveyed, respectively, at the present time; and how these percentages compare with those for 1he last available date before the publication of the White Paper on coal in June, 1942.

Major Lloyd George: The latest period for which the information is available is the year 1942. In that year 66.44 per cent.
of the total coal output was cut by machinery and 64.84 per cent. mechanically conveyed. In the year 1941, the percentages were 65.67 and 63.70, respectively.

Mr. Keeling: Is it not intended to keep these figures up to date?

Major Lloyd George: They will be brought up to date as soon as information is received from all districts.

Domestic Allowance

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is the total estimated tonnage represented by the domestic coal allowance of four cwts. per month in the southern counties and five cwts. in the northern counties.

Major Lloyd George: If all controlled premises took exactly the quantities named in the Question, the tonnage would be roughly three million tons per month.

Mr. Keeling: Does the Minister agree that it will be difficult to maintain even this modest allowance to households, unless strikes are reduced and output increased?

Major Lloyd George: Obviously, any allowances of coal must be related to
production.

Mr. Thorne: I take it for granted that no distinction is made between good and bad coal? Is the Minister aware that much of the coal I have had is absolutely useless?

Administrative Staffs

Mr. Foster: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the total number of persons employed under his Ministry, the number in the department of the regional controller in each area, separately, and the percentage of males as against females.

Major Lloyd George: As the reply involves a number of figures, I propose to publish it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The total number of persons employed by my Department is 5,107, of whom 226 are part-time employees. Of the total of 5,107, 36 per cent. are males.

The separate figures for the 12 Regions are as follows:



Total

Percentage of Males.


Scotland
329
…
31.4


Northern "A"
59
…
44.8


Northern "B"
171
…
34.7


North Western
393
…
31.6


North Eastern
323
…
36.9


North Midland
321
…
42.1


Midland
398
…
21.1


Wales
267
…
36.7


South Western
292
…
28.4


Southern
245
…
28.2


Eastern
242
…
20.2


London and South Eastern
436
…
24.2


Total for Regions
3,476
…
30.4

About half the Regional staff are employed in the Regional Petroleum Offices.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Alarm Clocks

Sir A. Knox: asked the President of the Board of Trade what the present arrangements are for the issue of permits to workers entitling them to obtain alarm clocks; and, in particular, whether these permits are issued by the trade union concerned or by the management of the factory.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): Since September, 1943, 557,000 permits for alarm clocks have been issued by the Board of Trade, mainly through the Trade Unions, to those who have to go to work between midnight and 5 a.m. All the most urgent claims should now have been met. I am not, therefore, issuing any further permits as from 1st April. But in order to give time for the outstanding permits to be cleared, unrestricted sale of these clocks will not be possible at present.

Sir A. Knox: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it better to issue these permits through the manufacturers concerned? I have a case of a man who works it hours in a factory, who has to get up at 3 a.m. in order to start work on the early shift, and who has been refused a permit, while other people, living very much nearer their work, can obtain permits. This man, however, happens to be not a trade unionist.

Mr. Dalton: This House and the country, and I myself, owe a great debt to the trade unions. This arrangement was made in

agreement with the British Employers' Confederation when the scheme was instituted in September last year. It has worked extremely well, and the trade unions have played the game throughout. They have met the claims of non-unionists in a great many cases. These arrangements have been carefully watched by my Department and I take this opportunity of thanking the trade unions up and down the country for what they have done.

Sir H. Williams: As 60 per cent. of the people in this country who work for their living do not belong to a trade union, why has the right hon. Gentleman adopted the Fascist principle that you must act through a corporation?

Mr. Dalton: I have already stated, and I repeat, that this was done in agreement with the British Employers' Confederation, who are acquainted, as are the trade unions, with the requirements of the case. Let me add that if this very effective method had not been adopted, I should have had to employ an extra horde of officials to do the work.

Sir A. Knox: Will the Minister tell me, in the interest of my constituent, what steps I must take in order to enable this man to get a permit?

Mr. Dalton: The hon. and gallant Member can communicate with me, as is common in cases of difficulty, and I will be glad to look into the matter.

Imperial Chemical Industries (Legal Proceedings, United States)

Mr. Liddall: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can arrange to place in the Library a copy of the complaint filed in the district court of New York against the Imperial Chemical Industries and other companies on 6th January, 1944; and what action his department is taking in respect of the British company involved.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been directed to the complaint, filed on 6th January, 1944, involving British interests by the special assistants to the United States Attorney General in the district court of the United States of New York, to the serious charges in the complaint, the allegations made of political influence and the charges made against the I.C.I., I.G. Germany and other concerns; and if he will have a full public investigation made.

Mr. Dalton: This complaint, which alleges violations of American law, will be the subject of judicial proceedings in the United States Courts. In these circumstances it would be inappropriate, and, indeed, improper that it should form the subject of a public inquiry here. I have already arranged for a copy of this document to be placed in the Library.

Mr. Ellis Smith: In view of the serious allegations made against persons and organisations in this country, are not the Government going to take action?

Mr. Dalton: As I have already stated, the Government are considering what changes if any, in the law regarding these matters are desirable, but this particular matter is sub judice in the American courts, and it would be very improper to have a public inquiry here.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is there any reason why the British Government should not institute an inquiry, parallel with that which is proceeding in America?

Mr. Dalton: American law differs from British law. Certain acts are violations of American law but not of British law.

Mr. Bevan: The fact that a matter is before the American courts does not make it sub judice in Great Britain, and why should not the Government institute their own inquiries?

Mr. Dalton: We have for a long time been making inquiries into this matter, and are satisfied that we know all the essential facts.

Mr. Bevan: Is it not in the best interests of I.C.I. that an inquiry should go forward in this matter?

Mr. Dalton: I have no knowledge of the arrangements about the American proceedings.

Mr. Shinwell: Can we have made quite clear the reason which induced the Government not to hold an inquiry? Is it because the matter is sub judice and before the courts in America? Surely it cannot be explained because of that?

Mr. Dalton: The hon. Gentleman refers to a particular form of inquiry—a public inquiry—and that is covered by my answer. I have stated, in reply to previous questions on many occasions, that the Government and myself, as President

of the Board of Trade, have been giving the closest study to this matter. We know a great deal about it, and at the right moment we will announce our policy.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: May I ask whether I.C.I. have asked the Government to have an inquiry into the matter?

Mr. Dalton: Not to my recollection.

Safety-razor Blades

Major Lyons: asked the President if the Board of Trade whether he is aware of existing dissatisfaction in regard to the present quality of safety-razor blades; and whether, in the interests of economy, no will arrange for their improvement.

Mr. Dalton: The supply of the special steel used for razor blades is limited by demands for urgent war production, but I am glad to say that I have had very few complaints about the quality of war-time blades.

Major Lyons: Will the Minister consider a specific complaint?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, but, so far, the public have been doing very well in making their blades last longer to help the war effort.

Mr. A. Edwards: Is the Minister aware that there are many complaints from prisoners of war about blades sent out by the Red Cross?

Mr. Dalton: I repeat that I have had very few complaints from any quarter.

British Film Industry

Mr. McEntee: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the number of full length films produced in this country in 1943 was only about 12½ per cent. of those produced in 1938, and, in view of the value of films for propaganda and for educational and cultural purposes, what action is he taking to encourage the British film industry and to prevent its being entirely dominated by interests outside the British Empire.

Mr. Dalton: My hon. Friend is misinformed. The number of British long films registered during the year ending March, 1944, was 70, as compared with 103 for the year ending March, 1939. I keep in close touch with representatives of the film industry and shall continue to take any action open to me to promote and develop the industry in this country.
Owing to shortage of man-power and of studio space, production of British films has had to be curtailed during the war, but I am satisfied that there is no danger of the industry being dominated by foreign interests.

Mr. McEntee: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he is aware that the continued existence of the independent British film producer is dependent upon the continued existence of the independent British cinema owner, who often provides the only outlet for British-made films; and will he ensure the continued existence of the independent cinema owner by regulating the conditions of film marketing practised by non-British interests, which are making the continued existence of independent cinema owners more difficult;
(2) if he is aware of the grave dissatisfaction which British motion picture exhibitors feel against the conditions of sale which are being imposed on them by representatives of American film interests in this country; and will he take steps to prohibit the continuance of conditional selling and institute a system more in accord with British custom and the generally accepted standards of international trade.

Mr. Dalton: As the House knows, I have obtained undertakings from the chief shareholders of the three major circuits, which effectively limit the number of cinemas they may control. As regards the conditions of sale imposed on exhibitors by film renters, I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side (Mr. R. Duckworth) on 4th November, 1943, and 10th December, 1943. This matter is, I understand, also under examination by the Committee of the Cinematograph Films Council which was set up, on my invitation, to consider and report on what further practical measures, if any, are necessary to check the development of monopoly in the film industry.

Mr. McEntee: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hundreds, if not thousands, of our own small shopkeepers are being prosecuted every week for infringing the law and imposing conditions of sale, and that the conditions of sale imposed by these big industries are almost putting people

out of business; why is one law applied to those outside this country and a more strict law enforced on our own people?

Mr. Dalton: I do not think that my hon. Friend has quite fairly stated the position. It is not possible within the limits of an answer to go into the details of this matter, but I shall be very glad to discuss it with him, as I have given a good deal of thought to it.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, following the undertaking he said he had received from the cinema proprietors and great undertakings, new cinemas are being acquired on a very considerable scale and new negotiations are being instituted even after the assurance he received and gave to the House?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, I am not aware of that, and if my hon. Friend can assist me by giving me particulars, I shall be grateful to him.

Mr. Bevan: I shall be happy to do that.

Major Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not the people outside this country who are injuring the small trader, but powerful interests inside this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — REQUISITIONED PREMISES (BIRMINGHAM)

Mr. Higgs: asked the President of the Board of Trade why pressure was put, by his Deparment, on Messrs. H. Incledon and Company, Limited, of 67–73, Constitution Hill, Birmingham, to vacate their premises, in May, 1943, for the purpose of housing a firm whose buildings were unsafe, as the firm in question never occupied the premises.

Mr. Dalton: This request was made, in the interests of war production, to Messrs. Incledon, who sold the premises to the other firm mentioned by my hon. Friend. These premises are now being put to very good use in the war effort, though not for the purpose originally intended.

Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister aware that, owing to the activities of his Department, a business of 40 years' standing has been closed down; and is he further aware that the premises are now in the possession of a competitor of the original owner?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. My duty in these matters is to assist the Service Departments and the Supply Departments to obtain space for war production and storage. I was requested by one of the Supply Departments to obtain these premises. I did so, and the premises are now being used for effective war purposes. I do not wish to go into detail, on grounds of security.

Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister aware that a certain firm was bombed out, that the premises stayed idle for three months, and that they are not used by the firm for which they were commandeered?

Mr. Dalton: I cannot add anything to the answer I have given.

Mr. Higgs: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFFORESTATION

Mr. Turton: asked the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether he will instruct the district officers to refrain from inspecting plantations in bracken-infested areas during the time the bracken is at full growth, and to make their inspection in the late autumn and winter when the condition of such plantations can be viewed with greater accuracy.

Colonel Sir George Courthope (Forestry Commissioner): Owing to shortage of technical staff it is necessary to correlate inspections of grant-aided schemes with other work which is at a maximum in the late autumn and winter. From the technical point of view there is no reason why inspection should not be made during the growing season. It is regretted, therefore, that the hon. Member's proposal cannot be adopted but, as hitherto, the convenience of woodland owners will be considered as far as possible in arranging inspections.

Mr. Turton: asked the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, the policy of the Forestry Commission to recipients of forestry grants who, through shortage of labour due to war conditions, have been unable to continue proper weeding and maintenance of plantations;

and whether the Forestry Commission will postpone the question of final approval of such schemes for grant until six months after the conclusion of hostilities.

Sir G. Courthope: It is the policy of the Commission, in interpreting the agreement under which grants are made for plantations, to take sympathetic account of the labour difficulties of woodland owners. Circumstances and conditions vary greatly from place to place and the Commission prefer not to lay down a hard and fast rule. They are prepared, however, to give special consideration to cases of implied hardship.

Mr. Turton: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that in some cases where there is a shortage of agricultural labour which is delaying the weeding of plantations, the Forestry Commission are demanding the return of all grants made previously, and is this encouraging for the future of forestry? Will he consider the attitude of the Forestry Commission?

Sir G. Courthope: I cannot accept the statement of my hon. Friend. There have been, I believe, one or two cases, which I regret, but, generally speaking, full and sympathetic consideration is given to the owners.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE (REFORM)

Mr. Martin: asked the Prime Minister whether he will move to set up a Select Committee to consider and report on all appropriate methods of parliamentary reform.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir; not at the present time.

Mr. Martin: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that some measure of Parliamentary reform is fundamental to a great deal of reconstruction?

The Prime Minister: As stated in those very general terms, I should hesitate to range myself prematurely in opposition to any such idea, but, on the other hand, I do not wish to commit myself to changes in Parliamentary procedure, of which the House should be the master.

Earl Winterton: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us have for a long


time past advocated—not during the war but after the war—the setting up of a Standing Committee on Procedure and Rules of the House, which committee could make recommendations from time to time; and, without giving a favourable answer at the present time, will he bear the fact in mind?

The Prime Minister: I realise that the Noble Lord has been 40 years in this House and I certainly will bear matters of that kind in mind.

Earl Winterton: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for his courtesy.

Mr. Buchanan: In view of the many changes that may be desirable in Parliamentary procedure, will the right hon. Gentleman at least consider setting up a committee to examine the position and make a report on it to the House and the Government?

The Prime Minister: The rules are the result of very long experience. They are extremely difficult and it takes a very long time to learn them. If they are kept continually in a fluid state, through the advice of a committee, I think it would add to the difficulties of Members in finding their way about our procedure. On the whole, I look with a critical eye upon the setting up of a committee of this kind, but I am quite ready to follow the wishes of the House, after a free Debate has taken place. It must be remembered that the function of Parliament is not only to pass good laws, but to stop bad laws.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the somewhat frequent Ministerial declarations—not on behalf of the Government, but on individual responsibility—on this subject of Parliamentary procedure, delegated legislation and the like, it would not be desirable that some body in the nature of a committee should go into the matter fully in order to avoid this outside controversy?

The Prime Minister: The conditions are abnormal. We have not our Standing Committees at work and our hours are quite different from what they are in times of peace. We do not sit on one day of the week which is usually thought indispensable. I have not seen any serious difficulty in getting great Measures through.

Mr. Petherick: Will my right hon. Friend be very vigilant against any insidious attempts to introduce the corporate State?

Mr. A. Bevan: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of recent events, the establishment of a Select Committee on Procedure of the House would not serve the purpose of educating the Government also?

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Prime Minister also consider the question of the Scottish Grand Committee?

Earl Winterton: I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, in view of the answers of the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that it is a proper topic to raise.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITY MEMBERS (MILITARY SERVICE)

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the position of elected representatives on municipal authorities who are serving in the Forces and take steps to ensure that, where it can be done without interfering with vital services, they are enabled to carry out their public duties by suitable postings.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I fear this is hardly a suitable time for introducing complications of this character

Mr. Edwards: In view of the official communications from men of this type, will it really be difficult to facilitate appropriate postings as far as possible so that these men can carry on their public and Service work? Certainly the official communications are to the effect that they wish to do this as far as possible.

The Prime Minister: I think it is a matter which should certainly be studied.

Oral Answers to Questions — CADETS (CAMPS)

Flight-Lieutenant Teeing: asked the Prime Minister whether the daily charge of is. 9d. at camps held for sea, army and air cadets must continue to be met by parents or welfare funds; and whether it could be made a charge against grants, so enabling many more boys to attend such camps.

The Prime Minister: I am not aware that members of these Forces are in fact unable to attend camps on account of these charges.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that these excellent organisations are voluntary, and that it is a matter of pride that these boys save up for a year to go to them? Most of them are working boys.

Captain Plugge: Is my right hon. Friend alive to the importance of the Army cadet battalions? Cannot something be done on the lines suggested to increase the number of boys who attend these camps which form such a useful part of their Army training and for which they voluntarily give their only annual holiday?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware that any are deterred on account of these charges. They are very moderate.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: asked the Prime Minister whether the officers accompanying cadets to sea, Army and Air Force camps, are taken on the strength and paid at Service rates during the period of the camp.

The Prime Minister: Officers of the Army Cadet Force who are on the strength of cadet units are dealt with in the same way as officers of the Home Guard. They receive no pay, but rations and compensation for loss of earnings whilst attending courses and attachments, and certain free services including free travel in certain circumstances. Officers of the Sea Cadet Corps and of the Air Training Corps are treated somewhat differently when they attend approved camps or courses. They are in general given the pay of their substantive rank for a limited period in addition to free accommodation and rations.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why there should be any difference between the boys and the officers at the same camps?

The Prime Minister: The officers are giving service, and the boys are receiving instruction.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: Are not the boys, at the same time, rendering a service, in training to join the Forces?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUMANIA (RUSSIAN DECLARATION)

Mr. Granville: asked the Prime Minister whether the political developments as the result of the advance of the Russian armies in the region of the Rumanian and Hungarian frontiers are subjects for discussion by the European Advisory Council or for unilateral action by the Allied Governments in that sphere of influence.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the replies already given to the hon. Member on list March and 29th March by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Granville: Are we to understand from the Prime Minister's answer that he is satisfied that the machinery for consultation which he set up at Teheran is working satisfactorily? In view of the Russian advance, is it not very important at the present time that there should be the fullest Allied consultation on these political questions?

The Prime Minister: Actually, the machinery to which the hon. Gentleman refers was set up not at Teheran but at Moscow, at the conference attended by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. This episode of the declaration by M. Molotov forms a particularly satisfactory example. The Soviet Government were good enough to send us the text beforehand; we expressed our admiration for it, it has been made public and it is, I am sure, likely to be of great help to the common war effort.

Oral Answers to Questions — EQUAL PAY

Mr. Granville: asked the Prime Minister if he can make a statement on the attitude of the Government towards instituting an inquiry into the whole question of the rate for the job in all public services and if he will arrange for Parliamentary time to discuss this.

The Prime Minister: I understand there is a Motion on the Paper to which 161mbers have given their names. This would certainly seem to indicate a wish on the part of the House that the matter should be discussed and I gather that that view is shared by others who took a more active part than the hon. Member. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the


House is considering whether an opportunity can be found in the course of the present Session. I only hope he will be successful.

[That this House is in favour of the immediate application of the principle of equal pay as between men and women employed in those classes of the Civil Service where recruitment is open to men and women alike through the same examination, and/or where the men and women members of the class are liable for identical duties.]

Mr. W. J. Brown: Arising out of that reply, am I right in supposing that the present Session would carry us right into November or thereabouts? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman indicate an early date for discussion?

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I put this point to my right hon. Friend? When I raised it with him last week he said that if the point were put here, he would gladly reply. The question he has been asked is whether he can arrange for Parliamentary time to discuss the institution of an inquiry. As I understand it, the Motion of my hon. Friend is on the substance of equal pay for equal work. Would it not be in accordance with the war-time position in the House that the substance shall be debated, and not the question of whether there shall be an inquiry, so that, in the light of the discussion, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House might be in a position to state at the end of it, that the Government would be prepared to establish such an inquiry?

Sir H. Williams: On a point of Order. Are we discussing Business or a supplementary question?

The Prime Minister: I have addressed myself to the Question on the Paper, and to other cognate inquiries which have arisen around it. Let me say that the Government have every wish to enable the House to discuss this matter. The exact vehicle and exact opportunity for discussing it, had better be settled by discussion through the usual channels.

Mr. Shinwell: If such a discussion should now take place, can we understand that it will not take place on a Motion of Confidence? Before this discussion takes place will the right hon. Gentleman indicate to hon. Members

whether the Government will resent any particular course of action hon. Members may take in the Division Lobby?

The Prime Minister: Even a National Government, supported, officially, by all the three Parties, has the same right as an ordinary party Government in securing and maintaining control over its own legislation.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The House has got very far from the original Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Post-War Staffing

Sir A. Knox: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as the National Whitley Council has been asked to make proposals regarding the post-war staffing of the Civil Service, he will also consult the Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants, which is not a member of the National Whitley Council, in order to ascertain the point of view of men and women now serving in the Forces.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): The Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants is not entitled to speak for the men and women now serving in the Forces. The association in fact comprises only a small body of existing civil servants, and, I understand, includes few of the men or women now serving in the Forces. The association has been invited to submit to the Treasury its views on the matters referred to in the statement which I made on 17th February, so far as concerns those persons whom it is entitled to represent.

Re-employed Pensioners (Pay)

Mr. Graham White: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the rise in the cost of living, he will take steps to alter the Treasury rule that now precludes a re-employed pensioned civil servant or teacher from receiving in salary and pension more than he or she received in salary prior to retirement.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): I have been asked to reply. There is no such Treasury rule. A civil servant or a teacher who is reemployed after having been retired on pension is entitled to receive the full salary of his new post together with any bonus


attaching thereto. What is limited, by Section 20 of the Superannuation Act, 1834, in the case of a civil servant, or by Section 6 of the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1925, is the amount of pension (if any) which he is entitled to receive in addition to his salary.

Mr. W. J. Brown: But is not the Minister perfectly well aware that in the case of the Civil Service, at any rate, the jobs for which retired civil servants are brought back are invariably the jobs they were doing before they left?

Mr. Speaker: That is a question which has been answered.

Mr. Brown: But the reply which has been given misleads the House.

Mr. Speaker: The question was answered just now, when the hon. Member was not in his place.

Women (Hours of Work)

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to what extent information in his possession corresponds with the common experience of medical practitioners that there has recently been an increase of illness among women civil servants due to fatigue; and whether he would be prepared to authorise heads of Departments to exercise discretion in suitable cases for the reduction of hours in modification of instructions given at a time when the national crisis was in its most acute stage.

Mr. Assheton: Owing to shortage of staff, complete annual sick rate returns for the Civil Service are not available. Such information as I have shows definite increase in sick absence over pre-war rates, and on the whole greater increase for women than for men; but the increase varies in different sections and localities, and is not, overall, very great. Heads of Departments have discretion in regard to hours, but, in view of the acute and increasing man-power shortage, they are not able to reduce hours generally.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Income Tax (Pay-as-you-Earn)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the approximate cost involved in the provision for, preparation, printing and paper and despatch, of the Pay-as-you-Earn Income

Tax forms and instructions now being sear out to employers; and what is the approximate weight of the paper involved.

Sir J. Anderson: The approximate cost of the paper, printing and distribution of the "pay-as-you-earn" tables and forms was £300,000 and the approximate weight of the paper involved was 3,000 tons.

Sir W. Smithers: Could not the right hon. Gentleman have found some less complicated manner of getting out the information? Is he aware that these forms are very difficult to fill up, especially for working farmers, and is it not a case of form-filling and bureaucracy running quite mad?

Sir J. Anderson: Not at all. This matter, as the House is aware, has been very fully discussed with representatives of those concerned.

E.N.S.A. (Cost)

Major Lyons: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the approximate cost, for the 12 months ending at the last convenient date, of E.N.S.A., including the amount paid out of funds of N.A.A.F.I.

Sir J. Anderson: The approximate gross cost of National Service Entertainment provided in the calendar year 1943, including costs of administration, is £3,500,000.

Personal Injuries Compensation (Income Tax)

Major Lyons: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his regulations impose a liability for Income Tax assessment on moneys paid as loss of wages or income for the period of disablement consequent upon personal injury suffered by the wage-earner and upon what basis.

Sir J. Anderson: A lump sum of damages awarded in respect of loss of wages suffered by a wage-earner for a period of incapacity caused by personal injury would not be regarded as income for Income Tax purposes. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any particular case in mind I suggest that he should send me particulars in order that I may have inquiries made into the facts.

Bomb Damage (Hardship Grants)

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will reconsider his decision not to make any


hardship grant on account of bomb damage to the property of a lady of 81, of whose name and address he has been informed, in view of the fact that she is unable to pay her mortgage interest and of her great age.

Sir J. Anderson: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave on the 29th October, 1943, to the Noble Lady, the Member for the Sutton Division, Plymouth (Viscountess Astor).

Oral Answers to Questions — FOSSE WAY (RECONSTRUCTION)

Colonel Greenwell: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if, in view of the necessity for better road communication between North-east England and the South-west of England and of Wales, he will consider including in his plans for post-war road development the reconstruction of that part of the Fosse Way South-west of Leicester which runs from the cross-roads half a mile South-west of Sutton Hill Bridge, through High Cross and Brink-low, to Halford, and also that part which runs from Cirencester, past Foxley and Wraxall, to Bath.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): As at present advised, I am not clear that these sections of the Fosse Way would form part of the best route for a road for through traffic from North-east England to South-west England and Wales. If, however, the responsible highway authorities have any proposals to make, I shall be glad to consider them.

Colonel Greenwell: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the road mentioned in the first part of the Question would bypass a great deal of heavy traffic in the Coventry and Warwick district and speed up traffic from North-east to Southwest?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am ready to consider the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CLUB RAIDS, LONDON

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can give any information in connection with the police raid on an East End social club in Whitechapel Road, Stepney, which

was being used as a betting house; and what action he intends taking about the matter.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): Action has already been taken against the Bancroft Social Club in Whitechapel Road. The premises were entered under a search warrant granted to the police under the Betting Act as a result of observation which disclosed that betting on horse racing and dog racing was taking place. The proprietor of the Club and 21 other persons were arrested, and en the 13th March the proprietor was fined £100 and order to pay £10 10s. costs, while the 21 frequenters were fined and bound over. Two of the frequenters who had previously been bound over were required to forfeit their recognisances.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give any information on the police raids on the West End Bridge and Social Club, Wardour Street, the Fulham and Hammersmith Working Men's Social Club, Garvan Road, Fulham, and the Maison des Hommes Club, Upper Islington, North; and what action he intends taking about the matter.

Mr. Peake: As regards the West End Bridge and Social Club, action has already been taken, and, as a result of proceedings by the police under the Gaming Act, the proprietor of the Club was on the 28th March fined £40 and ordered to pay £10 10s. costs, and 29 persons found frequenting the premises were bound over. The principal and seven of the frequenters who had previously been bound over were required to forfeit their recognisances amounting to £90 altogether. The Fulham and Hammersmith Working Men's Social Club and the Maison des Hommes Club were each entered on 27th March under a search warrant granted to the police under the Licensing Act, and in each of these two cases the question of proceedings for offences against the Licensing Act is under consideration.

Mr. Thorne: Why cannot the Home Secretary take powers to close clubs altogether when they have been convicted in this manner?

Mr. Peake: My right hon. Friend has, in draft, a letter to my hon. Friend explaining the position, which is somewhat


technical. But the short answer is that to take closing powers would not create a new offence, since gaming is illegal in any event.

Sir H. Williams: Why does the Minister prosecute people for doing in one place what they are free to do in other places? They bet to their heart's content on a racecourse, but it becomes a grave sin if they do it in a club.

Oral Answers to Questions — YUGOSLAVIA (B.B.C. BROADCAST)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Information whether it was with his authority that the B.B.C. broadcast in the nine o'clock news on Monday an exhaustive account of the Partisan Leader Tito's activities in Yugoslavia to the complete exclusion of any other anti-Fascist leader in that country.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): No, Sir; as my right hon. Friend has often reminded the House, the News Bulletins of the B.B.C., other than those in the European Service, are not subject to Government control. I understand that the passage referred to was based on a correspondent's accounts of an interview with one of Marshal Tito's chiefs of staff.

Sir T. Moore: This information must come from a Government source, or be authorised by the Government, and, if so, are there no other anti-Fascist forces fighting the Germans in Yugoslavia, except Tito?

Mr. Thurtle: My hon. and gallant Friend is mistaken; this information did not come from any Government source; it came from a B.B.C. correspondent in that area and was not subject to any action by the Ministry of Information.

Sir Alfred Beit: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Germans do not jam these Serb-Croat broadcasts, in view of the damage they do to the loyal feelings of the supporters of the Yugoslav Government?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Thurtle: I am not aware whether these services are jammed or not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—but I am clear that it is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Information to edit home news in the B.B.C.

Mr. Mathers: Is not the denial of responsibility by the Ministry of Information, for the B.B.C., overdone?

Mr. Thurtle: I understand it is the general wish of the House that we should not interfere with the discretion of the B.B.C. in reporting matters in their home service.

Mr. James Griffiths: Is not my hon. Friend aware that any news of Marshal Tito is welcome in this country?

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Cecil Aubrey Gwynne Manning, Esquire, for the Borough of Camberwell (North Division).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That the Proceedings on the Education Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Eden.]

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 30th March].

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Mr. Reakes: On a point of Order, relating to Business to-day, can the Leader of the House tell us what will be the procedure, in the event of an Amendment, which is to be considered later, being carried? Will the Government—

The Chairman: That is not in Order now.

Mr. Maxton: Since the suspension of the Rule has been carried, could the Leader of the House give us any indication as to how long the Government propose to keep the Committee to-day?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): We very much hope not very late. We do not want to sit late, but it depends largely on the Committee.

CLAUSE 93.—(Grants in aid of educational services.)

Mr. Parker: I beg to move, in page 65, line 28, at the end, to insert:
Provided that such annual grants shall not be less than sixty per cent. of the total annual expenditure of local educational authorities, and not less than half of the expenditure of each individual authority.
This Amendment has been put down in order to raise for discussion the whole question of the relations of the Board to local education authorities with regard to grants made to assist in carrying out the provisions of the Bill. I think hon. Members as a whole will take the view that, when the Bill has become an Act, it will be necessary to overhaul the relations between the central Government and local authorities from a financial point of view, and that we cannot open up the whole of those relations on the Bill. Such a discussion should be opened up at a later


stage, when the various proposals of the Government relating to expenditure by local authorities have been passed into law. But I think hon. Members will take the view that we want, at least, some progress shown on the Bill, with regard to the grant of assistance by the Government to local authorities, if the Bill is not to be a dead letter. Therefore, my suggestion is that there should be greater assistance given by the Government.
I am not particularly pledged to these proposals but they are put forward as a basis for discussion. In the Financial Memorandum, it is shown that in 1938–39 49.36 per cent. of the expenditure of local education authorities was met by the Board, and estimates are given that in 1948–49 55 per cent, will be met by the Board. That is a considerable increase, but I do not think it is anything like large enough if the Bill is really to work, and, therefore, I suggest that there should be a 6o per cent. grant. Under the Fisher Act, which introduced the percentage system, there were variations in the amount of the percentage but, roughly, up to 1931 about 5o per cent. of local authorities' expenditure was provided by the Board and. you had roughly an equal payment from rates and from taxes. There was supposed to be an equal partnership between the Board and the education authorities. I think it will be agreed that under the Bill you no longer have equal partnership but that the Ministry is now the senior partner in the field of education and, as that is the general interpretation, I think now the position should be recognised by an increase in expenditure from the Government. With the very large increases which are bound to come with increases in teachers' salaries, the larger number of teachers who will be required by the raising of the age, the establishment of young people's colleges, and all the other proposals of the Bill, it is right and proper that a much bigger grant should be given in order to make this a workable Bill.

Mr. Clement Davies: I am surprised that this rather weak Amendment has been moved by the Member for the largest constituency in the country. It is a typical Amendment of an urban Member which certainly does not meet the very sad case of rural constituencies, and certain industrial ones as well. I regard this Clause as the most important that we have had to deal with

since Clause 1, which puts forward a new policy to promote the education of the people of England and Wales and the progressive development of institutions devoted to that purpose, and to secure a national policy for providing a variety of comprehensive educational services in every area. One was hoping that that would be carried through to its proper conclusion, but by Clause 8 the burden of providing for those institutions and for the progressive education of the people is thrown on the local authorities. Now, under Clause 93, the Government can make grants in respect of expenditure incurred by the local authorities. That provides, not for a national policy, as seemed to be indicated by Clause I, but for a policy which is partly national but in the main parochial, for the burden in the main will still be thrown upon the local authorities. The total cost of working the Bill, it is estimated, will ultimately come to £190,000,000, of which £110,000,000 is to be provided by the Government and £80,000,000 by local authorities. There is no single local authority in exactly the same position as any other. They vary in every case, because their wealth depends upon the rate-able value of their area. The local authorities will have to provide, first, the institutions, which will now have to conform to a standard laid down by the Minister—which is of course right—and they will have to incur this initial expenditure before we come to the actual teaching.
When we come to the actual teaching, we are all hoping for smaller classes, a better and higher standard of education and fuller and better equipment, all of which will mean extra expenditure for the local authorities. How can they bear that? The rateable value of the whole of Wales, consisting of 13 shires and four county boroughs, is, roughly, £11,000,000 and 1d. rate produces £45,000 a year—to cover the whole of the people of Wales from Holyhead down to Pembroke and from Pembroke across Monmouth. The rateable value of the city in which I am now standing is also £11,000,000 and the 1d. rate produces £45,000 I do not know how many children there are in the City. of Westminster for whom institutions and teachers have to be provided, and yet the obligations upon all those 17 authorities in Wales will be exactly the same as the obligations put upon the authority in Westminster. That in itself is startling.
The Parliamentry Secretary and I have often used comparative figures which are well known to us both. He has done a great deal in the County of Surrey. Surrey is not entirely that shire which we know as Surrey, but what is left after a portion of Surrey has been put within the County of London. In that portion which is outside the County of London a 1d. rate produces £54,000. In my county a 1d. rate produces £670, but the obligation upon my people will be the same as upon the County of Surrey, and rightly so, because my children will have to meet exactly the same battle of life as the children of Surrey. They will have to undergo the same examination tests. No examiner will say "Unfortunately this child comes from Montgomeryshire, where they cannot provide him with all the facilities, and I will start him with l00 marks in his favour. This other child comes from the County of Surrey, where they can give him every assistance, and from him I will deduct l00 marks." The position is also vital in connection with amenities. Great improvements have been made—better buildings, central heating, provision for drying clothes and provision for medical attention and for feeding. The wealthier authorities have the buildings, but what about poorer authorities, such as mine? In my county they are in a shocking state, and that applies to rural areas everywhere and not only in Wales. Let me read a report on conditions of rural schools in Montgomeryshire; and what is true of Montgomeryshire is true also of Cardiganshire and Carmarthenshire and of any rural area one likes to mention. This is from my county architect, of whom we are rightly and tremendously proud:
I have gone through my survey reports with very great care and I estimate that 4o new schools at least will be required in Montgomeryshire to replace existing schools"—
That is, 40 schools out of 104 are condemned, and, what is more, ought to have been condemned 40 years ago, as the Minister knows. Some of them are over 100 years old, with all windows up above so that the children should not commit the terrible crime of looking out of the window. The report goes on:
which are either unfit for continued use or are hopelessly overcrowded. There are also 39 schools in urgent need of large-scale repairs and renovations. In the majority of these

schools the renovations required are similar in character and may be summarised thus:

(1) Totally inadequate lighting and cross ventilation, necessitating the removal of narrow lancet type windows and the insertion of large windows, with all windows made to open.
(2) The entire reconstruction of cloakrooms, which in the majority of cases consist of little more than entrance porches to the school."
I press this point, because that condition is not only very common but it must have led to as much distress as and more sickness than almost anything else. Country children come long distances to school, arriving early in the morning with their overcoats and their caps wet. They put them in the porch and then go into the school and sit there with their feet wet. There is no provision for drying their clothes. One of the most appalling smells is that met with in those little foetid porches where the wet clothes are hanging. The report continues:
Reconstruction of the offices is urgent, with the removal of all pails and pits.
It would surprise those who are accustomed to schools in urban areas to visit some of our country schools and see the primitive provision that is made for the small child. It is bound to affect the child's health, because small children are shy, and rightly shy. As the report says:
Water closets should be installed in all schools which have a gravity water supply. In the majority of schools no facilities have been provided for drying clothes and the surfaces of most of the playgrounds are impossible.
And so on. I will not read all this long letter; it is summarised in the last phrases:
Those are the principal defects. The cost will, of course, depend upon the ultimate shape of the reorganisation scheme, and at the moment I have no idea, nor has anyone else, how this will develop. Taking the schools as they exist at present, and ignoring possible closures my estimate is as follows: New schools £409,000, renovations and alterations £66,000, a total of £475,000, and my Id. rate produces just over £600.
How am I going to do it? Let me call attention to my present position with regard to rates. My rate has to provide not only for education but for a great number of other things as well. My rate for roads is the highest in any county in England or Wales. My education rate for 1942–43, elementary and higher education, was 8s. 6d. in the pound, for 1943–44 9s.1d in the pound and the estimate for 1944–45


is 10s. 2d. I estimate that if I only just put these schools in order, bring them up to the bare standard required for the national education for which this Bill provides, my education rate will be 15s. 1d. Is it to be wondered at that the younger and more vigorous leave my county? They cannot stay there. They have not housing or water or any of the other facilities, and now they are to be deprived of the same facilities for education as other places have.
This is not the position in Montgomeryshire alone. I would recommend hon. Members to study the county rates as set out in the gazette of the County Councils Association. Looking through all the counties of England, there is not one of them in which the special county rate comes up to 5s. and for higher education there is not one that comes up to 2S., but turning to the small part at the bottom, which refers to Wales and Monmouth, one finds these figures: Anglesey, elementary education, 5s. 6d., higher education 2S. 9d., a total of 8s. 3d. For Breconshire the figure is over 8s. and for Carnarvonshire 6s. In every instance, with the exception of the two counties of Radnor and Flint, for which there is an easy explanation, the figures are much higher than for any county in England. The reason why Radnor and Flint are lower is that Radnor has a population of only 20,000, and over half its rates are paid by Birmingham, which it supplies with water, and Fntshire is a small industrial county and the only county where the population is growing. The fact that stares us in the face is that when we try to educate our children the burden falling upon us becomes heavier and heavier and yet our children are not educated for Wales alone, because they go out into the world to add to the wealth of the world.

Mr. Stokes: I would like to ask a question upon the figures which the hon. and learned Member has been quoting. Does he mean that his education rate is 8s. 6d. in the pound and that that corresponds to a few pence in Anglesey?

Mr. C. Davies: No; I was reciting there the figures of the total cost. The total cost in, for example, Anglesey is 61d. for elementary education and 31d. for higher education. This present position is an impossible one. It draws a distinction which ought not to be drawn between the

education provided for children in one area and those in another. The Amendment before us will leave these idiosyncrasies still standing, will leave the distinctions still there. The only way of dealing with the question is to let the full cost fall on the State. The only answer to that made by the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary has been, "If we do that we shall be abolishing local authorities." I do not believe that for one moment. Let the local authorities carry out their duties. I could trust them not to overspend. Is there any distinction between the people who are in the country and have to look after the welfare of the children and the people who sit in Whitehall?
The last word remains with the Treasury in regard to expenditure and they have to maintain that standard throughout. I should like to point out that in the one and only instance so far, where we have had a 100 per cent. grant from the Treasury, that grant has been used wisely and well and with benefit for the children. In Anglesey there is now a 100 per cent. grant given for the feeding of school children. That has been a boon to Anglesey. They have looked after their children so well that they now occupy the first place in that respect. They could not carry on without the 100 per cent. grant.
I implore the Government to reconsider the position. If they want a national policy, then there should be a national Exchequer so that everybody is put upon an equal basis. There has been a great deal of controversy with regard to one form of education for the rich, and another for the poor, and also on the point that education should not depend upon the pocket of the individual father. That is perfectly right, I agree, but here we are emphasising it, more than is done in the case of private individuals. The wealthy authorities would be given an education which we poor authorities could not possibly afford. I sincerely hope that we should get far better consideration from His Majesty's Government, than we have had in the past.

The Chairman: I had proposed calling separately the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith)—
In line 11 at end, insert:
(3) Any regulations made by the Minister under this Section shall provide that in deter-


mining the amount of annual grant payable to a local education authority consideration shall be given not only to the actual expenditure incurred by the local education authority but also to the number of children receiving education within their area as compared in that respect with other areas."—
and that in the name of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. A. Jenkins)—
In line 11, at end, insert:
(3) The regulations to be made under Sub-section (1) of this section shall have regard to the average annual expenditure per child in England and Wales and the product of a penny rate in the area of each local education authority and shall provide that the grant to be paid shall be such that the rate in the pound necessary in order to maintain the average expenditure per child shall as near as possible be the same in each area."—
but having regard to the very wide ground which has been covered, I think it would be best to consider them together with this Amendment.

Mr. Colegate: Much of what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) has said must receive widespread support from all those who represent wholly or in part rural constituencies. The difference to-day under the existing circumstances is very marked indeed. In my own constituency, where industry and agriculture are inextricably mixed, you have the extraordinary spectacle in many parts of an entirely up-to-date modern school with every facility, with beautiful lighting, ventilation and other accommodation and, a very short distance away, a small school altogether inadequate for its purpose.
I think very few of us could support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) because it would limit the matter in a way that it is most undesirable to do at the present time. The whole question of the finance of the local authorities in this matter must be reconsidered and if Clause 93, as it stands, has no positive merit it has, at least, the negative merit that under it regulations can be brought forward which would provide altogether different proportions from those mentioned in the Amendment. I feel about this matter as I feel about other matters in connection with this Bill. I feel that the country as a whole, and Members of Parliament in particular, will have a very serious responsibility after this Bill has been passed because, as this reorganisation scheme is developed, we

shall be brought up against a number of problems, particularly the problem of finance, which cannot be dealt with at this stage of the Bill.
I am of opinion that after this Bill has been passed and after some progress has been made with the re-organisation contemplated, including a great deal that is not in the Bill, such as the reduction in the size of classes which in itself is going to be a very costly business although absolutely essential, we should have before the House, in the form of these regulations, a wide and comprehensive financial scheme which will enable any local authority to do its duty by the children that come under its area. I cannot go quite as far as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. I do not think the State should pay 100 per cent., but there is a great advantage in the local authorities in this and other matters having their position safeguarded by the fact that they are making some financial contribution to the work in hand. If we are to make a success of this Bill and give a first-class primary, secondary and extended education then the whole finance of the education system must be remodelled so that no matter where a child may be born, that child must have the same opportunity in every respect as a child born in some area which may be larger and which can deal with the matter in a totally different way.
I venture to urge on the President of the Board of Education that in the future, for good or ill, there is going to be a great deal more mechanical equipment in connection with education, particularly, of course, technical education. Throughout there will be the need for such equipment, which is very expensive. There are new devices coming on to the market—films are but one of them—which can be enormously helpful in education. A poor authority cannot afford them and, therefore, we must look forward to regulations being produced by the President which will re-model the whole system and give all authorities, or, rather, all children, because they are more important than the authorities, an equal chance of obtaining the best education possible under the scheme outlined in this Bill.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Now that the Committee have agreed on your suggestion, Major Milner, that all these Amendments shall be considered together, I would like, as briefly as possible, to make


a few observations, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to consider the principles outlined in the Amendment which I have put on the Paper on behalf of our local authority and other interested people. The President may remember that I raised this issue many times before the war and I found that several Presidents of the Board of Education were sympathetically disposed. In my view, now is the time for that sympathy to be translated into some financial arrangement that will give satisfaction to the areas for which we are speaking. The present system, in our view, depends too much upon the ability of the local authority to raise the finance. In Stoke we have a relatively progressive education committee, and they want to keep pace with the needs of the children locally and also with the national advance in education. But they find every time that their estimates are cut down by the local finance committee, not from any consideration of national finance, but purely from the point of view of local finance.
We have a relatively large child population in the area and we have very difficult local circumstances. As in many other areas, we suffer from mining subsidence which also has an effect upon the rate and the amount of expenditure necessary in order to maintain the locality. As a result of these factors, and others which I could mention, the rates are very high and the tendency is, for industrial reasons, to keep them as low as possible. The result is that the education estimates are cut down to an extent that is not worthy of the country, and that is done to cover the local circumstances. That means a serious lowering of standards for the children in the area because the cutting down of the gross sum spent on education means a reduction in the Government grant. In other words, local authorities that can afford to spend a great deal on education out of the rates, are assisted to a greater extent per child from Government grants. I find that in 1937 the average net expenditure per child was approximately £14, whereas in Stoke it was only £11, although it is generally agreed that we shall need increased facilities for educating our children if we are to hold our own in post-war industrial affairs.
It is wrong, therefore, from a national point of view, wrong from an industrial

point of view and certainly wrong from the child's point of view that this method of fixing the finance should remain as it is. We also find that in the same year West Ham spent £19 upon each child, and Manchester £16, whereas, in Stoke, it was only £11. I forget the figures given to me by the President of the Board of Education before the war for places like Bournemouth and Eastbourne, but they showed that many more pounds were spent upon the children in those localities than were spent in the area for which I am speaking and, therefore, I am asking that there should be a re-arrangement. I am informed by the local education authority that if this Bill is fully implemented the cost to our rates will be not less than 2s. 6d. Seeing that we have a relatively progressive education committee, who will be desirous of implementing this Bill to the maximum extent, it will have a serious effect on that locality if some change is not made in the financial arrangement.

Major Sir Derrick Gunston: Could the hon. Member explain what he means by a "progressive education committee"?

Mr. Smith: Compared with many other areas with which I am familiar and with which, I suppose, my hon. and gallant Friend is also familiar, many of the members of Stoke education committee are broad-minded people. They realise that you cannot get the best out of people in the future unless those who are coming on have a better education than was available in the past, and they are trying to cater for that as far as possible, within the limits set at the present time. All I am asking for is equality of treatment for the children throughout the areas. We ask that the grant should be made on the basis of the number of children in an area and not on the basis operating at the present time.

Sir Adam Maitland: One or two hon. Members have seemed to suggest that the National Exchequer should make a full and complete contribution to the cost of the new proposals which are embodied in this Bill. I understood my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) to suggest that there should be a complete remodelling of the financial basis on which the cost was to be met. That may meet one point of view, but I


must remind him that it is contrary to the terms outlined in the Financial Memorandum appended to the Bill. I would like to make one or two observations about that point. Those observations are made not from the point of view of such counties as that which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) has mentioned. We have the greatest sympathy with them, but I think the Committee would question the wisdom of basing the whole of our financial arrangements on a county which is the least able to help itself. It would not be wise to extend unduly the help which the National Exchequer should make and then devolve upon the local authorities the task of administering the duties which they are asked to perform. I do not think the local authorities have any objection to paying a proportion of the costs which are incurred in the educational system. From the point of view of central administration it could be argued that it would be a bad principle to set up as a general matter of policy that the central authority should pay and leave local authorities to administer. That is quite contrary to our existing system of Government.
I have had a resolution from the Association of Municipal Corporations. They do not speak for any particular section, for they have as members good and bad authorities and rich and poor authorities. They have tried to take a view of what is right and reasonable as a general principle. Incidentally, they object to the statement in the Financial Memorandum that the new grants shall be based upon percentages of the grants and expenditure of 1938–39. They consider that an unfortunate suggestion. One reason they give is that it will be necessary to employ many more teachers, and that will mean an additional cost which was never incurred in 1938–39. Local authorities also point out that the Minister will have far more control over the expenditure, than he has at present. Therefore, they suggest that for teachers' salaries the State grant should be 66⅔ per cent. on that expenditure from time to time. The Association also suggests hat the grant for the country as a whole for all other expenditure, except that on school meals and milk, should be based upon the expenditure in the year 1938–39, as indicated in the Financial Memorandum and increased as indicated therein. As the

financial arrangements are governed by regulations, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say whether it is his intention to consult the local authorities before finally determining what the regulations shall be. As to the, poorer authorities such as those referred to so eloquently by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery, I hope the Minister will frame the regulations in such a way as to permit of dealing with such authorities in a more generous way than is needed by other districts whose needs will in fact be equitably met under the general arrangements ulimately decided upon.

Mr. Arthur Jenkins: I disagree with the views expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland). I do not think that a 66⅔ per cent. grant of the total expenditure of the areas would meet the problem, nor do I think that 100 per cent, grant to certain areas would be satisfactory. Indeed, it would be damaging, because it would take away local interest from education, and that would be a great mistake. On the whole, I do not think 100 per cent. grant is necessary. I would rather have some system under which we could, by the general principle of having grants spread over the whole of the authorities, retain local interest in education. I rather thought I had done something to go a long way to meet that when I put down my Amendment: In page 66, line 11 at end, insert:
(3) The regulations to be made under Sub-section (1) of this Section shall have regard to the average annual expenditure per child in England and Wales and the product of a penny rate in the area of each local education authority and shall provide that the grant to be paid shall be such that the rate in the pound necessary to be levied by each local education authority in order to maintain the average expenditure per child shall as near as possible be the same in each area.
When I came to work it out, I found that, in proving my case, I should have to be fairly technical and use a large number of figures. I must apologise to the Committee for that, for it is difficult to explain a matter of this kind without using figures to a considerable extent. The purpose of the addition to the Clause that I suggest is to make the liability of education authorities as nearly equal as possible. I cannot imagine that there


will be much disagreement with that, or that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery would object to his constituents being called upon to pay the same rate poundage as the inhabitants of Surrey or some other counties. If that were done it seems to me that it would provide a way out. Unless we can devise some scheme of that kind it will be extremely difficult to attain the standards of education envisaged in the Bill. I have spoken only twice on this Bill and have confined myself to the financial side. I made a speech on the Second Reading and one on the discussion on the Financial Resolution. I then tried to bring to the attention of the House the problems that will arise under the financial arrangements of this Bill. I do not doubt that the President and the Parliamentary Secretary are fully acquainted with the facts and know them better than we do, but it is insufficient to be aware of the facts; in addition to the awareness there should be some action in order to meet the situation.
What is the situation? The extremes of rate liability for elementary education go from 7s. 5d. in the pound in Carmarthen to 1s. 7½d. in Surrey, a county of whose council the Parliamentary Secretary has been a very active and useful member. The average rate for elementary education throughout the country is 2s. 10d., and to even that out the Financial Memorandum provides £900,000. That is totally insufficient, and I do not imagine that either the President or the Parliamentary Secretary would contend that it is adequate or is likely seriously to meet the difficult situation we have to face. The Bill proposes to raise from the ratepayers an additional £29,000,000. That is equal to an average rate throughout the country of 1s. 8d. What is the incidence of that rate increase on the different authorities? Roughly, it is a 50 per cent. increase. Let me test it on Carmarthen and Surrey. In Surrey the rate increase involved will be about 10d., and it will make the total elementary education rate after this Bill is fully in operation of 2s. 5½d. In Carmarthen the rate increase will be 3s. 8d., making the total elementary education rate of 11s. 1d. That is an appalling difference. Is it not an unworkable situation? It is of vital importance that the Committee should pay close attention to it now. The Minister will have power to make regulations in Clause 93, and I want to say as

strongly as I can that the steep rise in rates that will result from the Bill, and particularly their uneven incidence, will make the arrangements adumbrated in the Financial Memorandum quite unsatisfactory, if not unworkable.
To what is this unequal incidence of rate liability due? It is due to poverty and low rateable value. The other main factor is, in education, the incidence of child population. Poverty is due to the kind of industries that may be in a district. To take an example, Wales and Monmouthshire have lost 413,000 people in the last 20 years—one-quarter of its population. They are the young people, the people who have been educated and on whom the authorities have, spent anything from £150 to £250 each. The authorities have brought them to the adult stage and any productive benefit to the area had they remained has disappeared, and they have removed to the richer authorities. Had they remained the rateable value would have increased from £1,000,000 to £3,000,000. Rateable value varies considerably. Throughout the country the average is £10, per head. It varies from £3 in some districts up to £30 in other districts. I am not talking about the big cities now. When we look at the school population the figures are even more startling. In the counties one in eight of the population is on the elementary school register. It varies from county to county from one in six to one in 11. It is vital to remember that in those districts where the rateable value is lowest the incidence of child population in the elementary schools is highest. That is what we have to face. In other districts the figures are: Cumberland, one in seven; Durham, one in six and a half; Lincoln (Holland), one in seven; Surrey, one in 10½; East Sussex, one in 11; Isle of Wight, one in 10; Carmarthen, one in seven and a half; Monmouth, one in six and a half. These figures tell us, in the first place, that in Monmouth we have to educate one and two-thirds children for every child which is educated in Surrey. That means a 60 per cent. increase in expenditure on elementary education.
If the proposals suggested in my Amendment were adopted we should remove a great number of those disabilities. First, we must take into consideration the average rate levied for education throughout the country. If we did that


we should be able to charge every authority with that amount. We should use the grant scientifically, in order to provide the additional money that will be required to enable the education authority to raise its standard of education to the level required by the President of the Board of Education. It is a more or less simple way. We have tried it to some extent before, as the Parliamentary Secretary will well know, when we adopted the 65 per cent.—or 60 per cent. I forget which—grant-in-aid of teachers' salaries. We deducted the product of a 7d. rate for every area, in order to equalise to some extent the rate liability throughout the country. The principle was embodied in the capitation grant, an advantage which went on for a while. As a matter of fact, it went on until the beginning of the war, when we merged the whole of those grants into a percentage grant.
If the proposal I suggest were put into operation, the effect would be that the money available now would enable us to increase the grant, for example in Newport (Monmouthshire) county borough, from 51.64 per cent. to 60 per cent. In Merthyr the increase would be from 67 per cent.—I will leave out the decimals—to 87 per cent. These figures, so far as I have been able to work them out, are approximately accurate. In Cumberland the increase would be from 58 per cent. to 79 per cent. In Durham, from 61 per cent. to 82 per cent. In Hereford, from 55 per cent. to 63 per cent. In Norfolk, from 58 per cent. to 74 per cent. In Staffordshire, from 58 per cent. to 74 per cent. In Carmarthenshire, from 59 percent. to 84 per cent. In Glamorgan, from 64 per cent. to 86 per cent., and in Monmouthshire, from 62 per cent. to 85 per cent.
There would be some reductions, and Surrey would be one of them. Under the present arrangement, Surrey is getting a percentage of 36.2 per cent. That would be reduced, on my formula, to 10.9 per cent. Surrey could well stand it. It would receive a grant of 10.9 per cent. of its total elementary educational expenditure. The average for the whole of the counties of the country would he an increase from 52.14 per cent. to 59.4 per cent. and for the whole of the county boroughs from 50.85 per cent. to 57.1 per cent.

The effect on London would be that it would receive, instead of 38.93 per cent., 31.6 per cent. The greatest loss sustained by any education authority would be round about a fivepenny rate, whereas the greatest gain, on my figures, would be something like a 3s. 6d. rate. Montgomeryshire, if the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire is correct, would be saved in the region of 5s. or even more.
Each district would pay the same rate. That would be the real virtue, and equality, of the proposal, and it would guarantee advancement in every district. It would put into the hands of the President of the Board of Trade greater influence and authority to see that the provisions of the Bill were given effect to. Moreover, it would go far to mitigate the effects on the ratepayers of cities and towns that have suffered from war action. On the other hand, I agree at once that any money expended in respect of war action would have to be compensated for. A system of that kind would be scientific, compared with the present system. It would be equitable, and it would be a proper use of the grant fund. It would mean that the peaks and depressions would be evened out and would make it possible for even the poorest education authorities to attain a reasonably high standard of service. Until that is done, it will be very difficult to give full effect to the provisions of the Bill.
These are not only my own views. They have a vast measure of support in the country. Even the Deputy Prime Minister, speaking at the annual meeting of the County Councils Association on Wednesday last, said:
Few would deny that grants in aid from the centre were necessary, in view of the financial resources of the various counties, but that system should not be pushed too far.
I am in entire agreement with that statement. The Chairman of the County Councils Association, in a letter he wrote to me last week, said:
I realise that the education, health and housing proposals will be dead letters unless we can get some change in the financial proposals.
That view was expressed by Dr. Maples, who is an Alderman of the Hereford County Council and is Chairman of the County Councils Association. The Government some time ago asked the County


Councils Association to prepare a report on the reform of local government. The association did so with very great care and the report was finally adopted when submitted to a conference of county councils, at which 6o of the 62 administrative counties in England and Wales were represented. In section 9 of that report, dealing with finance, it is stated
At this stage, the association do not consider it advisable to do more than reiterate their adherence to the principle of grant distribution according to need.
There is the principle, grant distribution according to need. That policy has been expressed in a resolution which has been passed by the executive committee of the association only recently. The resolution was in the following terms:
Having carefully considered the Financial Memorandum of the Education Bill … we are unanimously of the opinion that the grant proposals … are wholly insufficient to prevent … the imposition of an unduly heavy burden in many areas.
That is the County Councils Association.
I wish to quote further from a leading article published in "The Times Educational Supplement" in the early stages of the Bill. I would like to make two quotations. The first is:
Evidence accumulates to show that even an aggregate of 55 per cent., with a small reserve for the easement of extreme poverty, will in no way meet the needs of the poorer authorities. A change must be made here.
At the end of the article, this was said:
Two major obstacles are yet to be removed, finance and staffing. Both should be removed without delay.
Finance can be 'dealt with without much delay but staffing needs more time.
One of the declared objects of the Bill is to provide an equal opportunity for every child. That is the view of the Committee and I know also that it is the view of the President of the Board of Education and of the Parliamentary Secretary. Indeed, both of them have strongly given expression to that view, but an equal chance for every child is not possible as long as the opportunities afforded to education authorities are so unequal. It is impossible. The Parliamentary Secretary has had the pleasure of being a member of a rich authority. I have spent my energies on a poor authority. We have compared differences from time to time. The position has been mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Clement Davies),

who referred to rateable value. Let me give some particulars:
Surrey gets £54,000 as the product of a penny rate, with a population of 930,000. Monmouthshire has a penny rate producing £4,000, with a population of 350,000. In other words, we have one-third of Surrey's population and one-fourteenth of their rateable value. That constitutes a difference that will be very difficult to get over without some such method as I suggest in my Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary and I have often talked over these matters. A Surrey boy can go to the university with a grant of £125 or £150. That is a common action on the part of the Surrey County Council. What happens in Monmouthshire? A grant of 20 or £30. The rich authority can select the best teachers and provide better schools, with a higher standard of equipment. The one authority is well off, with a nice rosy complexion, while the other is emaciated and underfed. The one is the full employment standard while the other is the unemployment standard. That is where we are in education. That is what results from a variation in education rate liability from is. 7½d. to 7s. 5d.
I feel sure that the President will desire to remove that disability. He may not be able to accept the wording or even the form of our Amendment, but I would be content if he would say that the matter should be investigated if he would set up a properly constituted committee, working speedily and coming to its conclusions in the very early future, so that its recommendations would be ready when the Bill comes into operation, I think such a committee ought to be provided. Then we should have an effective grant system when the Bill is placed on the Statute Book and begins to bestow its benefit on the boys and girls of this land. Those benefits will be tremendous, provided they can be given to all. If that can be done, the boys and girls will indeed be well blessed. I do not want to see our education system develop the two nations idea again. Let us devise a scheme now, at the commencement of the Bill, by which we shall use the finance coming from the Central Government in such an effective and scientific manner that we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that every boy and girl in the land will have an opportunity of attaining the highest possible standard of education.

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): I think it will be convenient if I intervene at this stage. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary, who has special knowledge of this subject, will be able to answer points which are raised after I have spoken. The Government desire to help the Committee in this matter. I am sure we can say that all the speeches made have been marked by great thought and care, and have elaborated the case which hon. Members have sought to put to the Committee. We are also indebted to you, Major Milner, for enabling us to discuss all these matters together. This procedure is particularly valuable today, because we have a great deal of work to get through in order to get the Bill through the Committee by Easter. I attach the greatest importance to completing the Committee stage by Easter, leaving the further stages, which, as the Committee knows are very important, for later. If we can be guided by you, Major Milner, is you have guided us so far, I feel sure that we shall be able to make that progress, with the help of the Committee.
Let me direct myself to answering the points raised by hon. Members. Starting at the highest scale, let me take the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Clement Davies), who would like everything to be paid from central funds. I see the hon. and learned Member acknowledges the exactitude of my appreciation of his argument. I must not dwell upon this matter, because it is one which I think would not be completely in Order if the hon. and learned Member were to demand every single penny. Even if he demanded 98 or 99 per cent. I should still feel that that did not leave sufficient discretion to the local authority. I feel that education must be a partnership. This Committee has shown in its views on local government, which no doubt we shall be considering further on the next Sitting Day, that there should be a local interest in education. I cannot reconcile that argument with the desire of the hon. and learned Member that all the money should come from central funds. Therefore, I am afraid I must leave his argument, but not the sense of his argument, which is that the matter should be looked into.
Taking the sense of his argument I am grateful to him for describing some of the defects of our educational system. On

previous occasions on which I have used the same arguments for being, perhaps, dilatory on certain matters, the Committee have brushed them aside. The hon. and learned Member has done the Committee a service in reinforcing the arguments I have used on less happy occasions and I am very much obliged to him. The condition of many of our schools makes the Minister in charge, and his Parliamentary Secretary, take a very responsible view of the need for proper finance. I think I can probably fit in all the arguments that have been raised by the various hon. Members who would have desired to move the various Amendments in their names, and whose points we are dealing with, if I adhere to the programme of the speech I have before me.
The position, as I see it, is that the Committee have misapprehended the transitional nature of the grant formula upon which this Bill is based. That is the first point. The Committee has also misapprehended the extent to which in the early days that transitional grant formula imposes the greater part of the burden upon central funds. Further, I shall hope in the course of my remarks to indicate how, if the Committee feel that even these two major arguments do not satisfy them, the Government propose to make a new proposal for aiding the poorer authorities. That is the general lay-out of my speech. It only remains for me to say that I accept the spirit of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. A. Jenkins). The same applies to the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Stoke Mr. Ellis Smith). We have in fact, as I shall indicate, used very much these yardsticks in the proposals I shall have to make later for assisting the poorer authorities. I hope that hon. Members will not press their Amendments to-day, but will listen as patiently as they can to the general lay-out which I have just outlined.
The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker), who spoke first, has an Amendment on the Paper dealing with the possibility of a minimum grant of 50 per cent. and the possibility of a grant of more than 60 per cent. This leads me to take up my first point. I think the Committee misapprehend the nature of the transitional—I underline that word "transitional"—grant formula upon which this


Bill is based. This grant formula gives an overall 55 per cent. to local authorities. Those who examine the matter for the first time, or who examine in, cursorily, would imagine that "overall" meant that there was a similar grant given to all authorities. That is not at all the case. The present grant formula, which is one stabilised on the immediately pre-war level, was stabilised at a time of particular importance to local authorities. It was fixed at a time when the number of children was falling and when au, product of a penny rate was tending to rise. Therefore, taking the matter by and large, the stabilisation of the present grant formula, which is an extremely complicated affair, was done at a time favourable to the local authorities and more unfavourable to central funds.
That transitional grant formula, upon which we are operating and on which this Bill will start its life, is based and graded according to needs. That was one point to which the hon. Member for Pontypool attached particular importance—grading according to needs. Although his formula is equally ingeniously devised, I believe it would not give such general satisfaction, because it would cause a greater disparity between what the authorities receive than the formula, graded according to needs, upon which we are now working. I have before me tables, of incredible complexity, which indicate the exact combined standard percentage which will be received under this Bill by the different authorities. I said "combined standard percentage" because under the Bill, as hon. Members will remember from page iii of the Financial Memorandum, the grants for elementary and higher education are now mixed up together.
The combined standard percentage, therefore, differs very much according '0 localities and the fact that this formula is based on needs is, I think, the answer to a great many of the arguments hitherto used. Bournemouth, for instance, will receive under this formula 34.01 per cent., but Monmouthshire will receive 64.08 per cent., Durham some 64.25 per cent., Glamorgan 64.71 per cent., and Merthyr, which is one of the places where we have the greatest difficulty owing to its particular circumstances, 68.28 per cent. That indicates that this formula ranges from places which may regard themselves as comparatively rich, and get between 30 and 40

per cent., to places in greater need who have nearly 70 per cent. coming from public funds. That, I think, is the first answer to those who ask me for my suggestions for alternative formulae and those who wonder whether an overall 55 per cent. is fair.

Mr. A. Jenkins: Would it be possible to look at that formula? Has it been worked out in any detail so that one could examine it?

Mr. Butler: The best advice I can give, for a "child's guide to knowledge" on the formula, is to read the little grey book which I have read—being childish in these matters—entitled "An outline of the structure of the educational system of England and Wales." In the last pages the nature of the formula on which the transitional formula is based is set out extremely clearly. I can certainly make copies available in the Library for hon. Members. It is a book which we use for educating new Presidents, who change with remarkable rapidity.
The position as desired by hon. Members who have discussed their various Amendments, is that it would be better to fix a standard rate and a minimum rate in the Bill, that is by Statute. The proposition I am putting forward is that the wiser course for the Committee to adopt is to accept this elastic formula, graded according to needs and susceptible of revision in the light of operation, as a measure rather than any one of the statutory limitations which these Amendments would impose. If hon. Members accept that first major' proposition, I have been able to convince them of a large part of my case. I gather that they would not wish to accept that, unless they could feel that, at the same time, some additional aid was to be given to the poorer local authorities. But before I come to that, I want to complete my case in regard to the nature of the present transitional grant formula by reference to the Table in the Financial Memorandum of the Bill. There it will be seen that what I have said is accurate. Under this transitional grant formula, the increase for pre-reform expenditure falling upon central funds in the fourth year amounts to £19.9 million pounds but the increase falling upon the rates by the fourth year under the transitional grant formula, is only £3,000,000. That gives an absolutely clear indication that this transitional grant


formula, upon which the Bill will start, is so weighed and weighted that it does; in fact, impose in the early years, the greater part of the expense on the central funds.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: How does it work out so beautifully?

Mr. Butler: Partly because of the increased percentage which has been imposed, and partly owing to the great wisdom with which the formula has been devised. If I were to read out the specimen examples which have been before the Committee for many months, ever since the Bill was published, hon. Members would see that, ultimately, even if this formula were to go on for ever, there would be some £51,000,000 extra imposed on central funds and £21,000,000 imposed on the rates. Thus, even if the transitional were to go on for ever, the proportion imposed on central funds would be much greater than the proportion imposed on the rates. Thus, I go some way to meet the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery.
The Committee will wish to know whether I can accompany this formula which is graded according to needs, with some extra help for the poorer authorities. The suggestion was originally made that a sum of nearly £1,000,000, or, to be more precise,£900,000, should be made available for the fourth year for the poorer authorities. The Government now propose to increase that figure and to make an extra sum available for the poorer local authorities. The form or formula they propose to use is not one which can be finally decided exactly at this stage. It takes into account, however, the number of children to be educated in the area, and the capacity of the area to pay. Hon. Members will see that I am already paying attention to the sense of the Amendments put down by the hon. Members for Stoke and Pontypool. The Government propose to make available a sum of between £500,000 and £2,000,000 altogether that is, nearly an extra £1,000,000 from the Exchequer for dispensing among the poorer areas. It is impossible for me to announce at this stage the exact incidence but I am satisfied, on the working of the first formula, that this will cover between 30 and 40 of the poorer authorities. That will include the poorer Welsh counties

to which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery referred, because under any formula they are clearly very much in need of help.

Mr. Burke: Will there be anything left for Lancashire after that?

Mr. Butler: It all depends on the relationship of the numbers of children to be educated in the area and the capacity of the area to pay. If you take the tables of the incidence of these matters in various parts of England, and compare them with the rates set out, the nature of the authority likely to get help under this scheme will be immediately seen.

Mr. C. Davies: As I understand, two matters have to be taken into consideration—the number of children educated, and the capacity to pay. Will there be a third consideration, namely, the expenditure needed in order to come up to the standard? We have a lot of leeway to make up, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, in some areas in order to reach the required standards.

Mr. Butler: Provided that we do not put a premium on those who have not done their duty in the past. One of the reasons why I have not come out with an actual formula and tables to-day, is that I desire to hear what the Committee have to say on these points, and to discuss the question with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Every relevant point will be borne in mind. This combination of an assurance from the Government of this transitional grant formula, operating in the earlier years in the interest of the authorities, with the statement that we propose to increase the sum due to the poorer authorities, will, I think, go a long way towards meeting the arguments raised in this Debate; and I think hon. Members will agree that they have greater hopes from leaving the matter fluid, than from fixing a definite rate in the Bill. I have discussed this matter with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and we absolutely agree with the Committee that it is very difficult to decide the exact financial basis on which all the Government's schemes of social reform shall be introduced. I want to say nothing in an education Debate, which will prejudice wider issues —I have told hon. Members that before. It will be necessary, ultimately, in dealing with domestic issues in education to take into account the incidence of the whole


social programme, the post-war rate position, which we cannot foretell now, and the return to normal after the present war conditions, which are quite abnormal; we shall also have to take into account war damage, and so forth. I ask the Committee to have confidence that, by taking the grant formula I have described we shall start the reforms on a fair and solid basis. For the poorer authorities there will be a minus for the first two years, and also probably up to the fourth year. There will be an opportunity for reconsidering this formula after we have seen how it is working, but the main burden of the reforms will not fall on the rates in the early years and we are making special provision for the poorer areas. I hope therefore that Members will feel that we are launching these reforms on a better flood than they previously anticipated.

Mr. Lipson: The Committee will be grateful, I think, to my right hon. Friend for his sympathetic approach, and also for the concession which he has been able to announce. But he has spoken in the language of percentages and formulas. What local authorities are concerned with, and also what individual ratepayers are concerned with, is, what rates they will be called upon to pay for education while this Bill is being implemented, and when it is fully implemented. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, could give us some typical examples relating to the wealthier authorities, if he likes, some of the very poor authorities, and some average authorities, showing what their education rates are likely to be under the proposals, as brought up to date by the announcement of my right hon. Friend. If we are riot very careful education is going to be very unpopular in this country. This Bill, in my opinion, is going to be a very expensive matter, much more expensive than the Government appear to have realised. I am not quite clear whether, in estimating the cost of the Bill, they have taken into account the changes that are likely to occur; the great increase, for instance, that is inevitable in the salaries of teachers, which are the largest single item of expenditure. Everybody knows that, although taxes are unpopular, rates are even more unpopular. Even if a local authority were prepared to meet the very

heavy expenditure this Bill might call for, its members, when the municipal elections come, in a few months' time, might lose their seats for doing so. I would ask my right hon. Friend to see that the difficulty of local authorities in the matter of finance is met. They have asked for this Bill, they welcome this Bill; they are prepared to pay their fair share of the expenditure involved; but they do ask that the burden which is laid upon them shall not be an impossible one.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I join in welcoming the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, and his promise that something will be done to adjust the burdens that fall upon local authorities, but I would ask the Committee not 'o be swept off its feet by the emphasis which the Minister has laid upon the differentiation that is now to be made. Most people have a general idea that the local authorities pay half, and the central Government pay half, of the cost of education. That may be true of the country as a whole, but certainly it is not true of individual authorities: the percentage varies with different authorities. The right hon. Gentleman said, with regard to Bournemouth, for instance, that the percentage that came from the central Government was only 36 per cent., and that for Monmouth it was 64 per cent. One might imagine that a considerable measure of equality was thereby brought about. But I have in mind the percentages for two authorities of a similar character. We shall see how far the burden is equated there. In the county of Carmarthen, a penny rate produces 3s for every child who is being educated. In Surrey a penny rate produces 10s. for every child who is being educated. Let us apply the existing percentages. Surrey, comparable to Bournemouth, gets only 36 per cent.; Carmarthen, comparable to Monmouth, gets 59 per cent. Let us look at the result as far as the child is concerned. A penny rate in Carmarthen produces 3s. for the child; the State contributes 4s. That brings the total up to 7s. In Surrey a penny rate produces 10s for the child, and the State adds 6s. So, there is a considerable disparity in the amount per child, even when the percentages vary as widely as 36 per cent. and 59 per cent. Although I welcome every tendency to equate the burden, I desire to point out that, even the pro-


duction of figures like 36 per cent. and 64 per cent. does not go anything like far enough to give the children in these areas equality of opportunity. Out of every 105 of the population in Carmarthen 1 are schoolchildren, but out of every 105 in Surrey only 10 are schoolchildren. That accounts for the difference in the incidence in the two counties.
I want to reinforce the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) about making up leeway. It is these authorities who have been unable to raise sufficient money per child which are, by and large, the more backward in their buildings and equipment. Although one welcomes the statement that the application of these grants to poorer authorities is not to be made without regard to whether they have or have not fulfilled their obligations in the past, let it not be forgotten that, although my county have a considerable number of schools which ought to have been out of action, they have borne a considerable burden in endeavouring to do what ought to be done. My own county has an education rate of 8s. 3d., which is greater than the total rate in some other counties. Can it be said that we have not borne a sufficient burden when we carry an education rate greater than the total rate of some other counties? I do not want additional money to be given because an authority has been laggard, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind, when distributing this £1,500,000, that he should not make the test either the number of defective buildings or the condition generally, but should have regard to what these authorities have done in the way of carrying a fair burden. If he does that, we shall welcome the test, as we shall welcome the gradual closing of the gap between the richer and the poorer authorities.

Sir William Jenkins: I welcome what has been said by the Minister to the effect that he is going to reconsider the matter, but if any statement is to be made, the local authorities should know exactly what it means to the richer authorities and what it means to the poorer authorities. Will it be laid down as a general proposition, how it is to be distributed to the various authorities which are affected? I had experience of the Board of Education when we in Glamor-

ganshire were a very depressed area, from 1926 onwards. We had to come to the Board regularly, and we had doles. Sometimes we were very successful; at other times we were not.
So far as progress is concerned, in our area there was no progress at all. They wanted to put up new schools but they could not do so. They wanted changes, but they could not have them. On every occasion, we were told that there was either a May Committee Report or a Geddes axe. Therefore, I say that, before we can accept this—although I am willing to accept anything which has a tendency to assist the Board—I would like to know from the Minister himself what it means. Is it too much to ask, that before the Bill leaves the Committee, we should be given the particulars? What does it mean? So far as Wales is concerned, we have heard to-day from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Davies) about the effect on smaller authorities, and I think we ought to have it cleared up.
I think it was 1914 when the formula was first fixed. It has been changed on several occasions. Now it is to be changed again, and I think it should be a matter for either a Departmental Committee or a Royal Commission. Certainly, something should be done in order that we may have equal treatment. This Bill is all wrong, in my opinion, unless we do get equal treatment. What is going to happen? Are we being honest to those men who are to-day at the front, when we tell them "You are getting equal treatment"? We tell every man who is to-day fighting for his country, that there is to be equal treatment for all. When he comes back, what will he think when he finds that children are not getting equal treatment, and that, while some children benefit others in the poorer areas do not? My own county is one of- the poorest areas, according to the incidence of population, although it may be the largest and best county in Wales. At the same time, we are suffering considerably, because we have made so many attempts to try to improve our schools. Unless the Minister can give us some satisfaction with regard to this additional money, we cannot allow the Board to say that those authorities which come along later are to be the authorities who will be considered, and which will receive this additional money.
A previous speaker said he had every sympathy with us. We do not want sympathy at all; we want fair treatment for all children. We ask that, in Wales, our children should be treated like other children in the more prosperous areas. The Parliamentary Secretary knows the position of his own area. As between Glamorgan and Surrey, if £1,000,000 was necessary, I am told by financial experts that for Surrey it would mean a rate of 1s. 7d. and for Glamorgan one of 7s. 7d. Is that equal treatment for the people who are, to-day, fighting for their country and preparing a future for their children? I venture to say that, unless we can get considerably more satisfaction than is in the financial statement which has been made by the Minister, we shall not be able to carry out this Bill in Glamorgan. We shall not be able to do it, unless we get some guarantee, and I am hoping that that guarantee will be given to us, before this Bill leaves the Committee.
We ought not to be told, that at the end of this war, a committee will be appointed. I hope no committee will be appointed to curtail things, as we did at the end of the last war. At the end of the last war, our children had to suffer. I am glad that something has been done between the two wars in preparation for the feeding of the children, which is a very excellent thing. At the same time, we have some very bad schools in our areas and we want them removed. Blacklisted schools should be removed with the least possible delay, when the war is over I think a very reasonable demand has been made by the Federation of Education Authorities for Wales, and I hope their appeal to the Ministry will not fall on deaf ears. We are equal to the other authorities in the country, and we say what the other education authorities and associations have been saying all along—that this Bill will not work, because its financial arrangements are fatal. I believe, however, that arrangements can be made, so that we may have that equal treatment, which is suggested at the beginning of this Bill and so that all children may benefit and all authorities get the same chance to carry out the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Murray: I have great pleasure in supporting the hon. Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins). I came here fully prepared to support the Amendment in the name of the hon.

Member for Pontypool (Mr. A. Jenkins). I, personally, think that the suggestion made in that Amendment is long overdue. If the authorities in Wales, and those in other areas placed in a similar position, are to perform, after this war, the great services asked of them, they must have a fair and equal chance to do it. There is no need for me to beat about the bush. If the Government get the Bill, and I hope they will, it means for the authorities a great amount of responsibility. It also means that they will get a bigger job of work to do, and if we, in Durham, are to play our part in the great scheme of things, then we must, of necessity, have greater financial assistance. It will not add to our prestige here in this Committee if we, as legislators, pass a great Measure like the Education Bill without making it possible of administration by the local authorities.
Taking 1938–39 as the basis, the rates levied in this country for higher education by the different authorities varied considerably. I give three instances of county councils. The Durham County Council elementary education rate was 5s. 2.5d.; Oxford County Council 3s. 5.14d.; and Surrey County Council is. 8.93d. For higher education, the figures were: Durham is. 3.75d.; Oxford 11.22d.; and Surrey 5.51d. The total, for both higher and elementary education, was 6s. 51d. for Durham, 4s. 4.36d. for Oxford—a difference of 2s. 1.39d.—and for Surrey 4s. 3.31d.—a difference of 2s. 2.44d. What happens in the case of the county councils also happens in the case of the borough councils, and I should like to give three instances in this case. The St. Helens elementary education rate was 4s. 3.1d.; that of Bradford 2S. 6.9d., and that of Eastbourne 1s. 2.1d. For higher education, the figures were: St. Helens 1s. 7.9d., Bradford 1s. 2d., and for Eastbourne 3½d. The total education rate, for both higher and elementary education, was 5s. 11d. in St. Helens, 3s. 8d. in Bradford, and 1s. 5.6d. in Eastbourne. The difference between the highest and the lowest is 4s. 5.4d.
It must not be thought that the wide difference in the rates levied for elementary and higher education is due to extravagant administration or even to the provision of more expensive facilities for education. I can speak with knowledge for the County of Durnham, because I have 17 years' experience on the Durham


County Council and the Durham Education Committee; and I say without fear of contradiction that we always endeavoured to get the best value for the money we spent, and that not a penny piece of that money spent on education was wasted. If that is questioned, then I ask the Committee to examine the unit of cost for education against the charge made on the rates. The unit of cost in Durham was £15 7s. 9d., in Oxford £15 3s. 11d., and in Surrey £15 Is. 5d. For secondary education, the figures were: Durham £29 17s., Oxford £32 15s., and Surrey £28 13s. The Committee will readily see that the unit cost of education is thus practically equal, yet there was a difference of 4s. 5d. in the rates laid. In the three boroughs, you have exactly the same thing. In St. Helens, the unit cost for elementary education was £14 4s. 7d., in Bradford £15 18s., and in Eastbourne £14 6s. 7d. For secondary education, the cost was St. Helens £26 6s., Bradford £28 9s., and Eastbourne £28 6s. I do not think there is any necessity for me to argue this point. It speaks for itself.
I believe that different formulas are adopted to arrive at certain decisions, but you can take it from me that the man who has to meet a rate demand does not ask on what kind of a formula that demand is based. It does not interest him on what formula it is based. What interests him is how much money he has to pay in rates, and that is a thing that matters, so far as the people in Durham are concerned, and I should imagine that there is not much difference in humanity in many areas of this country when it comes to a question of paying rates. I understand that the Association of Education Committees has made several demands to bring about a better state of affairs and end this inequality, but without any result. I am very pleased to-day to have heard the Minister make the statement which he has made, and I hope that the prospect he has held out to the poorer authorities will bring some early fruit, because it is no use offering us a Bill with a 1944 outlook, if it is based on finances of a 1914 order.
I understand that the Kemp Report took as an average £3 as the annual expenditure per child to be educated in public elementary schools throughout the country. That was prior to the last war. In 1938–39 the annual expenditure per

child at public elementary schools had risen by more than five times, namely, to over £15, plus a general decline in the average attendance. The Financial Memorandum contains the proposal of payment of additional grants to the poorest areas, but what worries me is, that the basis of distribution is not yet settled. I understand from the Financial Memorandum that in 1948–49 the estimated amount of expenditure on the poorer authorities would be about £900,000, and when the reform is complete it will rise to £1,300,000. Surely, it can be said: What is this among so many?
What was the position of the Durham County Council in 1938–39? Expenditure on education, apart from agricultural education and the provision of school milk and meals, was almost £1,900,000, of which the Government paid 58.3 per cent. by means of grant. What did they leave to be found by the ratepayers of the County of Durham? They left the huge sum of £790,000. The rise in prices, plus the cost of the reform, it is estimated, will increase the expenditure from £790,000 to £3,900,000 per annum. Of this 63.3 per cent. will be borne by the Government, leaving more than £1,420,000, as the annual cost of this part of the education service, to be borne by the ratepayers of the County of Durham when the reform is complete, or an increase of £630,000. I am advised that, after all adjustments have been made, Durham County will be faced with an annual education rate charge of £1,560,000, which is equal to a rate of approximately 11s. 3d. in the £, or an increase of 45. 9d. on the rate of 1939, when the education rate was 6s. 5¾d. This is subject to any additional grant we may be able to receive from the additional grants to be paid to the poorer areas on a basis yet to be settled. If the estimate of £1,300,000 for the whole country is correct, Durham County would require half of this amount if the grant is to be of any use at all.
If there is a willingness to assist these poorer authorities, on the basis of need and ability to pay, this additional grant may offer a solution. The principle has been accepted by Parliament on previous occasions, and is a factor in arriving at the amount of grant payable under several statutes. I understand that the Cancer Act of 1939 is one of these, and also the Midwives Act of 1936, and the Air Raid Precautions Act of 1937. I understand


that under this formula the Durham County Council receives 85 per cent., as compared with 63.3 per cent. promised for education. The Government have decided to equip and standardise on postwar conditions, services for the country as a whole and have indicated the scale of expenditure required. Therefore, the Government could also decide the contributions which each local authority must make.

Mr. Molson: On a point of Order, Mr. Williams. Is the hon. Member in Order in reading his speech to the Committee?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): It is a little difficult for anyone to tell whether a speech is being read or nor, because there are variations in the quality of reading. If we go into so many figures, from every locality in Great Britain, this Debate will take a very long time indeed. May I suggest that, instead of giving these innumerable illustrations on a matter which has already been covered by illustrations of many kinds in the last few hours, we should try to meet what I think is the general wish of the Committee, and come to a conclusion in a reasonable time?

Mr. Murray: Thank you, Mr. Williams, but these notes are used as far as I am concerned for guidance more than for reading. I have only been a Member of this House for a very short time and this is the first time I have spoken on the Committee stage of this Bill. I have got across most of the things I wanted to say and I thank you, Mr. Williams, for allowing me to do so. I have listened to the discussion, which has been on a very wide basis, and I thought I was following the lines of many of the previous speakers.

The Deputy-Chairman: I said nothing about the hon. Member being out of Order, but suggested that possibly we were over-illustrating points in the Debate.

Mr. Murray: I have finished my illustrations. The Government have decided on the submission of a post-war education service for the country as a whole, and all I want to say is that, if they decide the scope of education, they ought to decide the contribution which should come from each local area and the average rate in the pound required. The total expenditure on the country as a whole, after deduct-

ing the total Government grant to be paid, could form the broad basis for distribution, the rate in the pound to meet the gross unassisted expenditure of each local authority, being the criterion of its need. Education is a national service requiring local administration, but it is most inequitable that the cost should remain a local charge, without adequate consideration of the financial implication. Subject to proper safeguards as to standards and service, assistance must be given to local authorities by Government grant on a larger scale, coupled with a measure of rate equalisation, so that all the authorities contribute according to their ability to pay.

Miss Lloyd George: I have no desire or intention to occupy the attention of the Committee for more than a few minutes. I am sure that the Committee welcome the fact that the Minister is willing and ready to meet hon. Members on this matter and has already made an offer of a concession. The question I would like to ask is, How far has the right hon. Gentleman in fact been able to meet the very real anxiety of the Committee on this matter? We are dealing with an issue which is fundamental; no less an issue than whether the child in a poor rural area is to have equal opportunity with the child in the better off area. The question we have to put to ourselves is whether the concession which the Minister has offered to the Committee is going to bring an end to the discrimination that exists, and will exist under the Bill as drafted, between the poorer rural areas and those areas whose resources are immeasurably greater. Is the grant formula as it is, or as it will be in its transitional stage, or as it is to be in the final stage, to mean that a child in Surrey—which has often been quoted to-day—and a child in areas where a penny rate produced only sums ranging from £600 to £700 a year, will have an equal opportunity if the concession which the Minister has promised is accepted?
I am not going to recapitulate the many arguments which have been used, and I am certainly not going to give any additional illustrations. But there is one point I would like to emphasise, because it has a real bearing on the grant formula. I refer to the very heavy burden which the poorer areas have to bear. It is not only in matters of education, though here


their burdens are very much heavier because they are backward areas and their organisation is behindhand and they have far greater leeway to make up. Take an area like my own where there are an enormous number of small schools, with the consequent increase in the number of of staff required, the additional costs of maintenance and of conveyance in the rural areas—and that applies not only to Wales, but to districts in England as well. But apart from this, the fact that they are poor areas means that in other respects their burdens are so much heavier—in housing, and certainly in water supplies, in sewerage and in electricity, and in all those services in which, we are all agreed, there should be minimum standards for every community in this country after the war.
I do not myself think that those considerations are given sufficient weight in the grant formula as it is to-day. I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary how much greater weight these considerations are to have in the grant formula in the transitional period. We do not know. We have no idea what the grant formula is to be in the transitional period, and what additional weight will be given to various considerations. I would ask the Parliamentry Secretary, therefore, to give us some indication on that matter. The President of the Board of Education has said that he realises that there is a very serious disparity. He has, therefore, said that he will meet us in some way or another. Apart from the grant formula, he says that he is going to distribute a sum which approximates to £1,000,000 and he is to add to that, I understood him to say, a sum to be distributed amongst poorer local authorities. If I am wrong, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the extra sum he is offering to-day is to be in the nature of £1,500,000 to £2,000,000 and that increased sum is to be distributed, as I understand it, between 3o and 40 counties in this country. That will not come to very much in each area.
I agree with the President of the Board that we really do want a flat rate as between one county and another. It would not assist the poorer counties very much if you had a flat rate, say, between Bournemouth and Blackpool and Mont-

gomery and Merthyr. Everyone would like a too per cent. grant. Who is there in the world, or in this Committee, who would not? It would be a very substantial inducement, but I agree that there, again, you want to retain a live local interest in education and you want also to have a responsibility and a certain amount of control.
The right hon. Gentleman said that in the grant formula he was already taking into account two considerations. One was the number of children, and the other was the capacity of the area to pay. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary this question: the capacity to pay for what? Is it the capacity to pay for this Bill, or is it purely the capacity to pay for bringing them up to the standard which rich areas enjoy at the moment? I would very much like to have a definition of what he means by the capacity of an area to pay, and I hope very much that he will give us that explanation.
May I say, in conclusion, that I believe the mere giving of a lump sum will not very materially assist, and I believe that unless there is some alteration in the grant formula this discrimination between the opportunities of a child in a rich and in a poor area will remain. The Bill will be a rich areas Bill, it will be a luxury that no poor county can really afford, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bring the Bill within the means of all.

Mr. Stokes: The President has put us all in some difficulty in that we do not know what his regulations are going to be, and we are really talking about this backwards. Some of us had in mind to move to report Progress in order to extract some information from the right hon. Gentleman but, out of sympathy with him and to get on with the job, we decided not to ask you, Mr. Williams, to accept that Motion, but it does put us m a very real difficulty. I want to support the Amendment, but I do not think it goes far enough. I understood from the Chair that the preceding Amendments could be discussed with this Amendment and that is what I propose to do. I quite appreciate that the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend on the front bench admits my Amendment as well. We heard from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) a very able statement on the difficulties of the poorer areas. I want to


make this point, in claiming that it is vitally important that more than the 50 or 55 per cent. contemplated by the Bill should be borne by the central authority. It is on this question of money lending. My hon. and learned Friend mentioned the difficuties he was in, but the point he did not emphasise was that in Montgomeryshire, as was indicated by the figures he subsequently showed, there would have to be no less a rate than 1s. 6d. in the pound in order to obtain the money which they will need to borrow, even as low as 4 per cent. I submit that a greater proportion should be borne by the central authority—I am not arguing whether or not we should nationalise the Bank of England, which is another matter altogether, but they could obviously borrow more cheaply, and therefore it would be to the advantage of the community as a whole. However, I do not wish to develop that. His point was that the children wil suffer in the poorer areas unless something is done. That is perfectly obvious to the Committee and to the Government.
The next point I wish to make is one I made in my short Second Reading speech. It is obvious that the country as a whole wants this Bill. It is no use Parliament passing the Bill and then finding, for one reason or another, that it is not implemented by the local authorities. The primary reason given by my hon. Friend was shortage of cash in the poor areas. That is a very good reason, but there are others, and people are seriously concerned lest, despite the obvious wish of the House as a whole to have this Bill and to have it implemented, we find ourselves frustrated in the country. I submit that that would be much less likely if we were to fix on the Government at least a 75 per cent. grant.
Earlier the President told us that whereas ultimately the increase on the rates would only be £28,000,000 per year the increase on the Central Fund would be £58,000,000. In 1943 the total rates collected were £196,000,000, and if you add £28,000,000 to that figure you do not have to be a senior wrangler to work out that the increase is 14 per cent. But there is a fallacy in the calculation which will no doubt he referred to later on the next Amendment. It is, that the whole of the figures are based on a 20 per cent. increase of cost. But the cost to-day is already up 105 per cent., and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us

that prices are going to be stabilised after the war and there is not going to be deflation. What will be the result of that? The amount to be borne by the rates will not be ultimately £28,000,000 but something in the area of £58,000,000; in other words, an all-round increase in rates of 25 per cent. I say that we shall find difficulty all over the country in getting the Bill implemented because we shall have all sorts of cross-currents, political and otherwise, which will militate against its complete fulfillment. The fulfillment of the Bill is of national advantage, and I submit that this Committee ought to do all it can to make it possible—not by providing 100 per cent. grant, because the local education authorities ought to contribute something; but unless the Government take more on their shoulders, when the total cost to be borne by local authorities comes to be realised we shall find obstruction everywhere and we shall not get what we all desire to have.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): My right hon. Friend in the course of his speech made an announcement with regard to the desire of the Government to assist the poorer local authorities. There has been a suggestion in some quarters that part of the money which he announced might be used to give still further grants to the richer authorities. Let me endeavour to make the position quite clear to the Committee. In the Financial Memorandum the Government suggest that there should be a sum of about £900,000 made available, after the revised formula has been put into operation, for easing the difficulties of the poorer authorities. To that my right hon. Friend has been able to add a sum that I imagine, in the end, will amount to roughly a further £1,000,000.

Mr. Cove (Averavon): A further £1,000,000 on the £900,000? Shall we have that in detail as it applies to the local authorities? Shall we have the picture of how it will ease the distressed areas?

Mr. Ede: That will give a figure of something not far short of £2,000,000. Not a single penny of that will go to the richer authorities. It will be dealt with, as my right hon. Friend said, in such a way as to ease the burden of some 30 or 40 of the poorest local education


authorities out of the 146 local education authorities which are envisaged for the future.

Mr. Cove: Can we have the details of this? It is only fair, if 30 or 40 are going to be relieved, that they should know. My hon. Friends agree with me. Will the Parliamentary Secretary name them and go into some detail about it?

Mr. Ede: Some of the poorest local authorities have been mentioned by name in the course of this discussion.

Mr. Burke: I wish to put a point of Order. We have only had names suggested by those Members who have been called and, in the main, they have been from Wales. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to say something about Lancashire.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is an interruption and not a point of Order.

Mr. Ede: The 30 or 40 poorest local authorities in this country are very well known. I will admit that perhaps when we get on to the border-line between those that are poorer and those that are poorest, there may be some doubts. My right hon. Friend made it clear that the exact formula on which this money is to be granted has not yet been worked out, but I have no doubt that with regard to at least more than half the authorities concerned, hon. Members acquainted with local administration will have no doubt as to which they will be.
There are, of course, many details which have to be taken into consideration in trying to arrive at this when one deals with the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) about capacity to pay. She instanced the problem that is very acute in her own county, the problem of the small school, which does undoubtedly considerably increase the cost having regard to the number of pupils. Clearly that is not a problem which so closely affects my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Murray) who spoke on behalf of County Durham. The burden which is placed on the local education authority, by its particular circumstances, including all the kinds of physical circumstances with which my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey dealt, will be considered in regard to the question of

capacity to pay. It is clear, for instance, that counties with scattered populations have a far heavier burden to bear than a county with a similar number of children and a similar rateable value where the population is in larger towns and where the problems she mentioned do not arise.
Coming to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker), I do not think that in the discussion any hon. Member has supported the plea in the Amendment that there should be a minimum 50 per cent. grant. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. A. Jenkins) suggested a minimum which I gathered might be as low as 10 per cent. or in certain circumstances even lower than that. The Government have no intention of reviving the old 50 per cent, grant that was placed in the 1918 Act. It would really have the most amazing effect if we were to do that. This is the one set of figures with which I propose to trouble the Committee, but it illustrates the difficulty which would be created for us if we endeavoured to resuscitate the 50 per cent. minimum. It would have the effect of reducing the rate in Surrey by 4d. in the pound. It would reduce it from 23.8d. to 19.7d. The rate in Durham with a 50 per cent. grant would be 70d. in the pound, and to reduce the Durham rate to 19.7d. would involve a percentage grant of 85.9 per cent. Quite clearly, we cannot, in the face of the discussion that has taken place here to-day, contemplate doing anything like that. We are endeavouring to enable the poorest authorities to shoulder the burdens that will be placed upon them. The fact that in the first two or three years, according to the Financial Memorandum at the commencement of the Bill, a minus figure is shown for the rates indicates that the first effect of the formula as included in the Financial Memorandum will be to reduce the rates in some of the poorest areas.
The further concession announced by my right hon. Friend to-day means that that process will be carried on for a year or two longer. In fact, it is quite clear that in the third year, which was shown to result in an increase of £500,000 to be borne by rates, the additional £1,000,000 or thereabouts will mean that in that year there will be a minus figure. In the next year, where the increase of


£3,000,000 was shown, the increase will be only £2,000,000. I want to emphasise, in conclusion, that at no stage, either in the White Paper or the Financial Memorandum, or in the discussions of this Bill, have we ever called this other than a transitional grant—

Mr. Lindsay: Obviously, the present grant is transitional, but when will this transitional grant cease to be transitional, in 1945 or 1950? At what point do we move into a different arrangement? Further, the Parliamentary Secretary said that there would be reconsideration of the whole of this matter. Can we have a firm promise that that will be done?

Mr. Ede: When my right hon. Friend said it, that must be taken as a firm promise.

Mr. Lindsay: It was put in rather general language.

Mr. Ede: With regard to what we mean by transitional and when it will come to an end, we regard this as a transitional period, firstly, because we are in the war period, and, secondly, because we are embarking on a new lay-out of education. We cannot tell when the war is coming to an end, but we desire to get away from the transitional period as soon as there is such a settlement of population and of the whole problem as enables us to get on to an arrangement that can be regarded as providing a reasonable basis for the future. We have no desire to continue the transitional grant formula for a year longer than is absolutely necessary.

Mr. A. Jenkins: I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that it is estimated that an additional £3,000,000 of rates will be required. Under the proposal made to-day by the President instead of £3,000,000 it will be £1,000,000 and the £2,000,000 will be distributed among the poorer authorities. Is that what the Parliamentary Secretary means?

Mr. Ede: No, the first £1,000,000 has already been deducted. That was part of the arrangement in the Bill. I have said that there is, roughly, an additional £1,000,000, which reduces the £3,000,000 to £2,000,000. That is a perfectly clear statement. As I have said, we desire to get on to a permanent basis when the factors for such a basis exist. No one knows what the distribution of population will be. There are the problems of rebuilding in various areas and the probable shifting of large popula-

tions from one area to another, which may very well influence the vital factor of the number of children to be educated in a particular area. One of the great difficulties of getting on to any permanent basis with regard to grants of this kind is the fact that there is no national basis for the assessment of rates. That is the overriding difficulty in regard to grants, whether for education or any other social service, which we are bound to take into account when we use the illustrations which have been used with such force to-day. I hope the Committee will now feel that, for the period immediately facing us, the offer made by my right hon. Friend is a reasonable one and that we shall get to a permanent basis for grant as soon as possible.

Mr. Cove: I gather that approximately another £1,000,000 is to be granted in relief of distress in the poorer areas. This £900,000 is a vague general figure; we have no details to show how this sum would affect what I will call, for convenience sake, the distressed areas. What a number of us here are concerned about is what would really be the detailed effect in some of those areas. Could the Parliamentary Secretary give us concrete illustrations which would illustrate what this £1,000,000 may mean in relief to these poorer areas? I am asking this because, as has been said so often to-day, this involves equality of educational opportunity. It is really vital, because everybody knows that if the poorer areas cannot sustain their educational system the children in those areas will suffer considerably. My hon. Friends and I would be delighted if we could be given, say, just half a dozen concrete instances—

Mr. Lipson: I asked for them.

Mr. Cove: —of how this £1,000,000, which is extra, would relieve the burden of those areas.

Mr. Ede: Clearly, it is impossible to give concrete examples until the exact formula has been settled. It is easy to use phrases like the "number of children" and "capacity to pay," but the moment my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) began to analyse the second point it was quite clear that it is not a simple thing that can be applied by any rule-of-thumb method. A


variety of factors have to be taken into consideration, but as soon as we are able to work out the formula the fullest information will be given to the Committee.

Mr. Cove: Do I understand that this £1,000,000 is being shoved into the Bill higgledy-piggledy? Is it an amorphous sum, which has been thrown into the Bill? Has there not been any formula? Has there not been any concrete basis on which this figure has been based? If so, it is an amazing situation to me, because we do not know how it will work out. Surely the Government ought to know how it will concretely affect the various areas, because this is an important question.

Mr. Butler: As I am responsible for the original statement, may I say how much I sympathise with the Committee and with myself? What would have pleased me more than anything would have been to have been able to read out a list of the areas, showing all the rewards which they were likely to get as a result of this formula.

Mr. Cove: The award is not to us. For instance, I am not pleading for an award to my area; I am pleading for an award for children in distressed areas and I should have imagined that it would have been quite easy to give half a dozen examples from England as well as from Wales.

Mr. Butler: My difficulty is that in the original concession made to the poorer areas the Government had to keep the matter general in case the formula worked out wrongly at the exact moment at which it was applied, thereby leading to disappointment and deception. That is my position to-day; I am not able to offer concrete examples. But I can say that we have gone to great pains to inquire into how this works. I have indicated a number of authorities which are likely to profit. I said that the poorer Welsh counties were bound to come into such a scheme and that other parts of England are also bound to come in. The areas where the money is most needed will get the extra sum allocated by the type of formula already announced. It would be wrong for me to go further than that because, as I have said, it might lead to deception and disappointment. It is not because I have not gone into the question

of how the thing works out, because I have done so, and I always do so. I think it is in the general interests of the Committee that they should take the offer as I made it.

Mr. Cove: I agree that there was an announcement of a general formula, and I agree that it should remain as a flexible formula, but there is no formula so far as the poor areas are concerned. How is this money to be distributed? Personally, I am in favour of a general formula in finance as it applies to the educational services, because it has been a flexible formula, but I am not aware that either the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary has made a pronouncement with regard to a formula for relieving the burden of the distressed areas.

Mr. Butler: I did; I said that we should work out the extra additional help on the basis adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. A. Jenkins), which is the number of children to be educated in the area and the capacity of the area to pay. That can be taken as the general criterion. I am more than sorry that I cannot give every detail to-day, but I will do it when the time is most suitable.

Mr. Parker: In view of the long Debate we have had on this subject—over 2½ hours—and the assurances given from the Government Front Bench and the general wish of the Committee to get on with the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Lindsay: I do not wish to refer to the past discussion at all; I only want to ask the President whether, as this is the first time in the history of the Board that research will be assisted from the centre, and as the country spends about £100,000,000 on education and has not spent a penny of State money on research before, he could give an indication of the general direction in which it is proposed to use this new instrument.

Sir John Mellor: I want to ask one question with regard to Clause 93 (1 b), which authorises, in effect, the payment of a direct grant. I want to ask to what extent it is intended that the


Regulations shall govern the reconstitution of the direct grant list. Is it intended that these Regulations shall deal with the matter in some detail, or only generally? If they are to deal with the reconstitution of the direct grant list in some detail, will the existing direct grant schools, and the schools which aspire to get on to that list, be given an opportunity of making representations to the Board before the Regulations are made?

Dr. Russell Thomas: What I intend to discuss is far remote from the discussions to which we have listened, but I trust I am in Order at this point in discussing the provisions made for teaching animal welfare in the schools.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think that has anything to do with the Clause.

Mr. Burke: May I put a point which I have been trying to get in all day? It appears that those authorities, not necessarily the poorest authorities, who have been doing their duty and have been complimented for carrying out the Hadow scheme as far as they could go and have done most of the things on the elementary side of education in this Bill, but who cannot go very much further because they have taxed themselves to the utmost, are apparently not going to be helped out of this pool of £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 and, also, are not going to be regarded as the poorest authorities. Will the Minister consider the suggestion that has been put forward by the Association of Municipal Authorities that some means should be found of meeting the extra payment of teachers by bringing that into the formula that he is considering?
In my own authority we have not, for many years, appointed any uncertificated teachers. We have tried to get the very best, and we have taxed the rates to the utmost. It is impossible for us to go any further and yet we want to carry out the scheme under the Bill. This Clause is the crux of the whole matter. If the Bill is not to be a dead letter—and I would remind the Minister that the Secretary of the Association of Education Committees has already said that the Bill is dead unless the finances are improved—may I ask the Minister if he will give consideration to the question of teachers' salaries and introduce them into the formula, if

not on the lines suggested by the Association of Municipal Authorities, by paying 66⅔ per cent., at least by doing something to meet the difficulties of those authorities who will not be regarded as the poorest, but who want to carry out the Bill but find themselves up against financial difficulties because, so for, they have done as much as they can possibly afford?

Mr. Butler: One or two points have been raised. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke) is quite right and the point he raises has already had the approval of the Board. The difficulty of making the grant to which he has referred in connection with teachers' salaries and which has been referred to by the Association of Municipal Authorities is that it would entail an additional cost which would accrue to the benefit of the richer authorities more than to the poorer. I am quite ready to say that this should be one of the matters to be investigated when the transitional grant formula is looked into, but I am not ready to say that it should be one of the features of the immediate years in which the Bill starts on its career. I am, however, very glad that the hon. Member has raised the point—the point has been brought to my attention independently—but apart from that I have nothing further to add.
My answer to the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Mellor), who has spoken on several occasions about the direct grant schools, is the same as I have given on two occasions before and during our Committee Debates. I have told the hon. Baronet before that these conditions would have to be severely governed by the Minister and such considerations as the financial status of the school would have to come into consideration and also whether a school serves a particular locality or a wider locality. The hon. Member was quite right to raise this matter, but, as I said on an earlier date, I cannot add anything to the arguments I used on that occasion.

Sir J. Mellor: I am asking quite a different question on this occasion. I am asking about the regulations. What is contemplated with regard to these regulations? Are they intended to be made in general or is it intended they should go into some detail and, if so, will schools on the direct grant list and those who aspire to get on to the direct grant list be


permitted to make representations before the regulations are made? I have never asked that question before.

Mr. Butler: We shall clearly have to give a lead to the secondary schools during the course of this summer in order that they may make up their minds before we come to the regulations to which the hon. Baronet refers. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) raised the question of research. It is an interesting fact that Mr. Fisher, in his Bill, included no provisions for research, and the result was that the central authority, despite the well known wish of Mr. Fisher at the time, did not include any provision for research. We propose to use the definition in Clause 1 of the Bill to the best of our ability and to promote institutions, as the Clause says, for the purpose of encouraging a better education in the country. I already have before me an example of an organisation asking for money to aid research, and I hope one of the earliest acts will be to assist anybody desiring to encourage research. I do not think the central authority should do it all; the local authorities should do their part.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 95.—(Maintenance contributions payable by the Minister in respect of aided schools and special agreement schools.)

The Deputy-Chairman: Mr. Tinker.

Mr. Cove: On a point of Order. The hon. Member is going to move some additional points, I understand, in connection with denominational schools. The Minister has on to-day's Order Paper, page 902, a new Clause which appears to me to provide an alternative method of assistance. It seems to me, therefore, that the Committee is faced with two things on this issue: one according to the Amendment about to be moved by my hon. Friend, and the other according to the Minister. It puts me in a dilemma, because I have to choose between these two issues. I was wondering whether it would be possible to have a discussion of such a nature as would range over the whole field and, if there are to be Divi-

sions, to take them automatically afterwards. It seems very difficult to decide independently and in an isolated manner upon the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend when, lurking behind, is the new Clause by the Minister which deals with the same thing in a different manner.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think we had better deal with the Amendment as it stands on the Order Paper. No doubt the Minister will make some remarks on this Amendment, and it is possible that he may say something which will go some way to meeting the point.

Mr. Cove: If the Minister does make some remark with regard to the new Clause, would it be in Order to discuss that in relation to this Amendment? I agree with the Minister that it is essential in his explanation to the Committee, and may help in dealing with this problem, to raise the other matter, but would it be in Order for us also to make remarks on those lines?

Colonel Arthur Evans: May I ask that it should be borne in mind that the Amendment of my hon. Friend proposes an additional charge on the Treasury, whereas the new Clause which has been put down by my right hen. Friend does not impose any charge on the Treasury.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that that does emphasise my point that we must keep the discussions between this Amendment and the new Clause separate.

Mr. Butler: It would be useful to consider, if possible, the whole issue together. After all, it is very difficult to dissociate the points, and while I agree that the details on how to operate the new Clause ought to be considered on the new Clause, I hope it will not be impossible to make some mention of it at a later stage.

The Deputy-Chairman: Naturally, a matter of this kind is in the hands of the Committee and I do not think the Committee benefits from too strict a Ruling, but we must stick to the rule of discussing each Amendment separately, unless it is agreed that two Amendments can be considered together. I think where there is a new Clause, such as we have here, it is a different position, but if, as I said in my original remarks, the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) moves his Amendment


and if later the Minister says, "This Amendment is covered by a new Clause," I do not think it would be wrong to have some idea of what that new Clause is. I think, on this occasion, it might be to the advantage of the Committee to have a fairly wide understanding on this matter.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: It may be that there are Members who would oppose the Amendment but who would be prepared to look differently on the new Clause. I imagine that many Members may say that they would like the one and would not like the other, and the Committee may get into difficulty if we try to divide the Debate by a sharp line, between my hon. Friend's Amendment and the new Clause.

The Deputy-Chairman: That being the case, it would be better, as I said earlier, subject, of course, to the opinion of the Committee, to have a discussion here covering this, and then, when we come to the Minister's Clause, we should naturally be free to divide, but not to have a separate discussion.

Mr. Buchanan: The Minister may, quite properly, say "I propose not to meet this Amendment in full, but to go some way towards meeting it by my new Clause." That would be a proper course. It would also be a proper course for somebody else to say: "You are going to meet us a little, but riot enough." I think, having regard to the general outlook of things, it might be better if we could dispose of the new Clause today.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is for the Committee to decide whether it is wished to dispose of them separately or together.

Sir Percy Harris: They are linked together. They are alternative methods. If the right Gentleman says he proposes to deal with the matter in a different way, will it not be in Order to refer to the alternative method?

The Deputy-Chairman: If the Committee agrees that we discuss the two methods together, which is what I am aiming at, the Minister will put his side of the case and anyone else can disagree with him. That is only fair.

Mr. Cove: Here are presented two different methods of meeting the problem.

I think it would be better to discuss them together.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Tinker (Leigh): I beg to move, in page 67, line 42, to leave out "one half," and to insert "three fourths."
The Clause at present reads:
The Minister shall pay to the managers or governors of every aided school, and of every special agreement school, maintenance contributions equal to one half of any sums ex pended by them in carrying out their obligations under paragraph (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section Fourteen of this Act.
It is laid down that certain repairs that they might be called upon to do shall be met, as to 50 per cent., from their payments, and as to 50 per cent., from the Treasury. At present 95 per cent. of the whole cost of education is being met by the Treasury or the local authorities, so that it is half the remaining 5 per cent. that we are discussing. It is estimated by the Board of Education that the cost of building will increase by 35 per cent. on pre-war. That would mean that the amount we should have to meet would be £10,000,000 over a period. Lord Portal has said that the cost of building will increase by 105 per cent., which means that the Catholic community will have to provide £14,000,000. The Amendment is on that narrow issue. If it is carried, it will bring the cost down from £10,000,000 to £6,500,000, so that what we are discussing is whether we can afford a further grant of £3,500,000. That is what we are appealing for. It is not really a big thing for the community as a whole, but it is a big thing for a particular section of the community. We are anxious to carry out the provisions of the Bill and we intend to carry them out as far as we can. I do not think anyone will say we have been unreasonable in the case we have put forward. We are prepared to accept the system which has been accepted by all denominations in Scotland, but the Minister says it cannot be done in this country and he gave his reasons in the White Paper. Also, we have been prepared to accept pre-1939 costs—that is, without any increased cost for war damage and that kind of thing.
We are not wanting to get clear of our responsibilities. I have said we must pay something for our religion. I speak as a Catholic, and it may be that I am prejudicing my case by doing that, but I


also speak on behalf of the Leigh Council. It met in August last, just after the White Paper was issued, and passed a resolution asking that the amount of the Government grant for the reconditioning of elementary schools should be raised from 50 to 75 per cent. It cannot be said that the Town Council is one-sided. The Labour majority is two out of a total membership of 32. That is a hint to my Labour friends who may take a strong line about the granting of any more money to, Catholic schools. Some hon. Members may be in a difficulty because of what happened last week. We were then brought into line. I came into line. The Prime Minister was questioned by the hon. Member for East Islington (Mrs. Cazalet Keir), who asked:
In view of what the Prime Minister has said about the procedure on the next Sitting Day, I would like to ask him one question. Are the Government going to treat all the rest of the Amendments on the Education Bill in the same way, because, if so, it will be of very little use having a Committee stage?
The Prime Minister replied:
I hesitate to make declarations about the future, until or unless we have been fortified by a Vote of Confidence. But I should not have any hesitation in hazarding the suggestion that every Amendment must be judged on its merits and in the relation which it has to the general policy of the Government"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1944; col. 1456, Vol. 398.]
I submit that the Committee is free to decide what course it will follow. I believe that, if it agreed to the Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman would say, "That is the opinion of the Committee, no principle is involved and we will find the extra money to meet the just demands made by these people."
There is another matter to which it is deplorable to have to refer. A very distasteful circular was issued last week. I can only put it down to fanatical zeal on the part of some people who do not reason at all, because they must know that this kind of thing kills their case. They will never make any progress by such means. I should like to quote words uttered by one of the greatest men is the Catholic hierarchy, the late Cardinal Hinsley:
Our present difficulties, our debts for school buildings, our defects, are due to the inequalities of the past, which condemned us to compete with the provided schools in respect to building and equipment. This unfairness

was inflicted on Catholic ratepayers and taxpayers because of their consciences and because they could not accept a programme of religious instruction agreeable to more wealthy fellow citizens. Catholics from these islands and from the various parts of the great British Commonwealth of Nations have given and are giving their full share to victory in the war and we are most anxious to avoid a revival of the old controversies of the past at this time of crisis. We are still willing to make financial sacrifices for conscience sake, but there is a limit, and the present financial proposals are inadequate.
That states our case. Our burden is too heavy to carry. I agree that the Education Bill is overdue but I want every section of the community to get what it thinks is a fair deal. There is no question of principle involved. It is just a question of giving a little more financial aid.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I rise to support the Amendment which has been moved in such moderate, reasonable and thoughtful terms. I join with the hon. Member in strongly deprecating the outside agitation which has been created by ignorant and ill-informed people. No matter what case is before the Committee, it would be deplorable that outside influence should be exercised in that fashion. The burden on the Catholic community, as on other denominations, in the restoration of their schools is so heavy that the Treasury ought to be prepared to discharge some part of the obligation. The figures the hon. Member has given, which have been examined and re-examined, are evidence of the volume of the burden which will rest on the Catholic community if the Bill goes through in its present form. In the long and somewhat exacting Debates on the Bill of 1936 the case was established for assistance of the nature asked for in this Amendment. In that Debate there was considerable difference of opinion, as there is no doubt in relation to the Amendment now before the Committee, but I think it was established beyond question that there was a case for these schools. The case we submitted to the House of Commons in 1936, which was the subject of prolonged debate and which was established, was for a measure of justice in the restoration of schools that were in need of repair and in the building of new schools. The Committee ought to examine this Amendment in the same spirit as was shown at that time.
We are grateful to the House for the toleration which has been shown for this aspect of our case. It is a great tribute to the democratic quality and character of this House and to the good will which exists in every part of the House that so many Debates have taken place on a matter which, 25 or 30 years ago, would have cut very deeply into public life. That is due to the kindly toleration that the House has shown to the Catholic community. It is not for me to press further the financial considerations, for my hon. Friend has put the case in a nutshell. We are asking for a measure of, I will not call it justice, but of fair play, in relation to the restoration of our schools and the building of new schools. We have a claim for that consideration which the educational structure of the country as a whole demands. The Catholic community in this country, even in our own time, has made a substantial contribution to education. Many hon. Friends in this House have told me from time to time how proud they are of the education which their daughters have had at Catholic schools Many Members of this House and of another place whose children were educated in Catholic schools pay tribute to the standard and quality of the education. We look back to a time, vis-à-vis this Amendment and the financial burden placed upon us, when Catholics were responsible entirely for the educational structure in this country. From the point of view of history and present day economics, we think that we are entitled to the consideration for which we ask in this Amendment.
You, Major Milner, have been extremely kind to us in giving us a large measure of liberty in discussing this Bill, and you have again given us a large measure in this discussion. Unless we have a concession of the nature suggested in the Amendment, or a concession equivalent to it operated at the instance of the Board, or in some other way, and so long as we are unable to carry out the restoration of our schools and make them fit and proper places for the education of our children according to the standards laid down by the Board, an embarrassing burden will be placed on the Catholic community on which I can place no estimate. It will be a serious blow to a section of our people who have done their best to carry out the duties of citizenship and their obligations to the State in every

respect. Everybody in this country and abroad acknowledges that this great Bill is an amazing piece of work of my right hon. Friend by which he has raised the whole problem of education to the level it has reached to-day. There are people who rarely talked about education who now are really interested and who feel that something is being done to raise the educational status of the people. Equality of opportunity has assumed a new meaning. It was only in Scotland up to recent times that we found people interested in education, and now the interest has spread. The Scottish dominie played a wonderful part in education in the past. So have the priests in this country, and we are asking that the priest and the lay Catholic teacher in this country should have the same opportunity of making their contribution in the broad field of education that was given to the dominie and the teacher in Scotland in past days. They laid the foundation of the great Scottish school system which my hon. Friend has said we are anxious to enjoy.

Major Vyvyan Adams: As my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) protested a little earlier about certain methods used against my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education, I would like to say something along the same lines. Certain words that he used in this controversy on 29th July, 1943, are constantly being torn from their context by certain supporters of the principle of this Amendment. Among them I include myself, but I do not include myself among those who quote these words against my right hon. Friend. The words were:
Therefore I have not been able to concede the full demand of those who desire complete liberty of conscience."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 5943; col. 1836, Vol. 391.]
By some propagandists those words have been interpreted to mean that my right hon. Friend was opposed to liberty of conscience. Of course he meant nothing of the kind. I believe the meaning of his words would be evident if they were restated in this way—"Certain demands have been made by men who say they desire liberty of conscience; I have not been able to meet those demands fully." That, I am sure, is what my right hon. Friend meant. It is necessary to say that because these words have been constantly quoted against my right hon. Friend and


I do not wish unfair methods to be used in putting the case which we are advancing.

Sir P. Hannon: May I say that, as far as I know, no Catholic Member of this House has ever made any accusation of that kind?

Major Adams: This House unfortunately is not the whole of the community. I am speaking of what one has heard up and down the country, and, therefore, I cannot see that the interruption was very relevant. The traditional apology of oppositions when moving Amendments to Government Bills is the desire, it is said, to remove the more noxious features from a piece of evil legislation. The motive behind this Amendment is entirely the opposite. It is to prevent the good being the enemy of the best. No Education Bill has been more widely greeted with acclamation, notwithstanding the unfortunate and confused convulsions of last week. To-day we are touching something which, unless it is remedied, will prove a source of resentment and grievance felt by an articulate and well articulated minority, a grievance which the Government and my fellow Protestants could easily exorcise with a little courage and imagination. Few Members of the Church of England could be by conviction and upbringing more low than I. But I am interested in the removal of unnecessary discontents. I believe in the tolerations of democracy and I do not believe that democracy implies the tyranny of the majority. True democracy implies respect for minorities and the security of their beliefs.
When I see this proposal to increase the State liability for aided schools from one-half to three-quarters, I ask certain questions. I would like to restate those questions which I put to myself as conscientiously as I can. First, Is it a fair claim? Can the Catholics reasonably be expected to meet the 50 per cent. instead of the 25 per cent. as suggested? Next, If the Catholic claim is conceded would the public at large, both Catholic and Protestant, be painfully aware of any gross addition to the public burden? I believe that that gross addition has been estimated to-day as £3,500,000. It will make a great difference to certain poor Catholic communities if the suggested pro-

portion is preserved. The next question is, What will be the social results of denying this claim? Will anyone be injured if the tiny citadel of English catholicism is made a little more secure? What Protestant child or parent would suffer by this concession? I submit that anyone who answers these questions objectively is bound to accept the Catholic claim.
How far should we go in making concessions to minorities? Clearly not so far as to endanger the interests or the rights of the majority. I hope I may be allowed to draw an analogy between the two important minorities in this country, the Jews and the Catholics. No doubt there are bad elements in both communities, but the benefit reaped by the whole community from the good elements in each minority is beyond price and beyond calculation. They supply to the State as a whole that which Disraeli held to be important—vigour and variety to our national life. It is true that both these minorities, more than any other minorities in this country, put their religion first and subordinate everything else to it. But are they to be condemned for that? I should not think any less of myself if I never defied the teaching of the Gospels. Nor can it be contended that either of these two important elements is a menace to the rest of us.
If I may draw an analogy with another community, there is sometimes a slanderous suggestions that all Jews in this country are Communists. That is entirely untrue, but even if it were so, it would not matter because they could not by themselves alone elect one Member to Parliament. Who can seriously suggest that we Protestants in this country are in any danger of being swamped by Catholics? It is a ludicrous proposition because only one child in every 15 is a Catholic. Is that a danger? It was not the Catholics, for example, who made up the total of our fellow countrymen who applauded Franco's rebellion in Spain, nor was it the Catholics as a body who resisted the policy of sanctions against Italy—

The Chairman: rose—

Major Adams: I will not risk an interruption from the Chair. I will merely say that I have known a good many Catholics who took neither of, these points of view. I merely wish to say that, even


if Catholics entirely held the opinions, which I have suggested but have not described, we could without a twinge of apprehension behave as generously as we like to the Catholic claim, and I am sure that only good would come of it.
Catholics are among the poorest of the community and are not going to face with a light heart 50 per cent. of the cost of building new denominational schools. We see throughout the country how they gather together in poor communities, and the way they scrape together in order to keep their education going is a pattern to every other denomination. Many Protestants would concede that truth without any effort of conscience.
There are three main arguments against the Catholic claim. They vie with one another as fallacies. First, we are told that the claim offends against the Cowper-Temple Clause. I am not going into that matter at any length, because I should fear to be stopped for irrelevance. I merely wish to say that the Cowper-Temple Clause might well die a decent death, being no less than 74 years old. The second argument is that public opinion is opposed to it, but we are never told, when this argument is used, whether public opinion has been properly instructed upon this matter, nor yet how its opposition can be known. Certainly, nothing in the nature of a plebiscite or referendum has ever been held on this matter. In any event we know how Burke gave the right answer long ago. We are here to use our own judgment and certainly not to follow a public opinion which has never yet been defined.
Finally, I am afraid I inferred from the speech of the hon. Member for Leigh almost a suggestion in favour of the third argument, which strikes me as shocking. It is that the Catholics are so keen on their schools that eventually they will pay up in any case, so why worry? This argument has about it a smell of comedy, but perhaps that is rather too good a word. A more accurate word might be "blackmail" but I understand that we are not allowed to use that word in this honourable Committee. It may be that the concession to Catholics for which. I am pleading this afternoon, along with many other Protestant Members of this House, might involve a little more trouble for those of us who constitute the over-whelming Protestant majority, but looking at the matter from the wide aspect of

national expenditure and national economics, I really cannot see, as all are to be educated, how it can cost the nation, as a whole, very much more. The main point in the matter is whether we are to be sincere in our attitude about minorities. I make no apology for finishing with another allusion to this question. We often profess our pride in our toleration towards minorities. I do not know why, since this is supposed to be a Christian country, and such toleration is only one of the rudiments of Christianity. To-day, more than ever before, it is a fine reputation well worth possessing, but reputation does not come with the wind. It is something which is the result of conscious effort. This Protestant country ought to be willing to pay something for it.

Mr. Barr: I am afraid that in one way I rather rejoice that I am giving an illustration of the truth of what was said by the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) that a great change has come over opinion, as compared with, say, a generation ago. I was born and bred in the spirit and tradition of the Scottish Covenanters. I have the honour to belong to the most celebrated and most illustrious parish, adjacent to and indeed part of the constituency of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay). I contested it against him, but without success, on one occasion. I was brought up in that parish. I might say that the blood of the Covenanters is in my veins. From many a platform, and more, if I might say so without any boast at all, than any man living, I have gone about the country extolling the virtue, courage and the heroism—while admitting some of their mistakes—of those our forefathers.
The hon. and gallant Member for West Leeds (Major V. Adams) spoke of himself as a Low Churchman. I do not like the expression, but in that regard I would say frankly, although I do not like the word, that I am a Low Churchman and have gone, and still go, into pulpits, extolling the virtues and simplicities of the Protestant faith. I am a Protestant of the Protestants. It is said, of course, by some, but not with justice, that we are a Protestant country, so why should we be providing facilities for the education of Roman Catholics? The only Protestantism I have ever admired, and to which I have


ever adhered or will ever adhere, is one that is ready to concede to other forms of devotional religion the privileges and the right to full liberty and spiritual freedom, which it claims for itself.
If our Catholic friends will excuse my saying so, Protestantism is the last religion in the world that needs to profit by seeking unjust favours at the hand of the State or by imposing unjust disabilities on those who differ from it in creed or ritual. In my view, Protestantism has not to win its way by repression but by seeking a fuller freedom for all. It has to win its way by reason and argument, and by noble deeds, and vieing with other forms of faith, in order to give us a freer purer, nobler and more Christian country. We are not to seek privilege or preference, and least of all repression. I believe in Milton's great dictum in his "Areopagitica":
Let truth and falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?
The main thing is that the encounter be free and open. The claims of freedom are more exacting still. It is said that even if we did not provide what is claimed for the Roman Catholics in education, we would in no way be running counter to their civil and religious liberty. But I often think of these great words in the "Stanzas on Freedom" by Russell Lowell, in which he says that we have not full freedom for ourselves
If we do not feel the chain
When it works a brother's pain.
And, in a later verse:
No‡ I True Freedom is to share
All the chains our brothers wear,
And, with heart and hand, to be
Earnest to make others free.
When we give a little bit more liberty to those who differ from us, we open out new avenues of freedom for ourselves.
I doubt whether the Bill will secure exactly what we might call equal treatment. I am more doubtful, after hearing the previous Debates, about the allocation of State support that may be given to various schools, but I believe that it is the best that the Minister can do. Whatever may be our fundamental views on the question, let us get as near as we can to religious equality. It is because I have been struggling all my life to support religious equality that I supported

the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, and I would seek to bring this matter also to the gauge of that question When we know all the intricacies, and the efforts that Ministers of the day have made to give equality of treatment, I am not sure that we shall have complete religious equality here. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) say that he welcomed the Scottish system, which has prevailed for 25 years and has operated, and is operating, with the support both of Protestants and Catholics. I recognise that the Minister is not able to travel quite on those lines, but I wish to pay my tribute to the general result of the Scottish system after its operation during these years. We know the difficulty of Catholic doctrine and Protestant doctrines being taught in the State system. It is true to say that the Shorter Catechism is being taught on the Protestant side in Scotland. It is not universally adopted by any means, but it may be taught.
I have only one other point which I wish to put forward. I have stood always for the liberation of the Church from the State. Our Regulations and our system should be so adjusted that we take care that, in seeking the liberation of religion for adults from the State, we do not allow it to be endorsed, established and endowed in the schools. I belong to a Church which, in one of its sections, was wont annually to make this declaration, which is worthy of the attention of the Committee, and ultimately I believe all must agree with it:
This synod of the United Presbyterian Church reaffirms the principle that the teaching of religion is not within the sphere of the State and should therefore be left free from its support and control.
I am not one of those who fear if in the course of history such a resolution should be more fully adopted, for I have faith in religion asserting itself in a way that will meet any situation. When I was in New Zealand, where such a system prevails, I stayed with a minister who was dressing himself one morning to go out. He explained that he was going to give the religious lesson—

The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he is certainly going extremely wide of the Amendment, which is a proposal to extend certain contributions. I hope that he will be able to confine himself to that subject.

Mr. Barr: I thank you, Major Milner, for the indulgence you have given me, and I would naturally not tread further on that course. I only intended to say what was driving us, and agreeably driving us, to support in full such proposals as have been brought before us. I think, Major Milner, you will not deny me this closing word, that whatever view we take of these difficulties, and of the solutions proposed to-day, it would be a great mistake and a great tragedy if the Churches, either Protestant or Catholic, were to rest on their oars and think that all had been done that could be done. On the contrary, it is my wish that on both sides they should use this solution to further advances in their own definite teaching and religion. I know the difficulties, but it is an operation week by week in Scotland that the schools receive voluntary religious training, sometimes in a church by a minister of religion. I know the difficulties, but if the Churches will so use the new Education Measure, as it is my desire they should use it, to the voluntary furtherance of their own religious teaching it will, in my view, be as life from the dead to the Churches, as well as to the teaching of the country.

Captain Cobb: I would like, if I may, first to congratulate the mover of this Amendment on the extremely moderate and reasonable way in which he did so. He has set a very good tone to the Debate, which might otherwise have developed differently. The tendency of hon. Members who have spoken up to now has been apparently to regard this Amendment as affecting only the Catholics of this country, but it is, after all, not purely a Catholic question. In spite of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church Assembly, it affects the Church of England as well. It affects Church of England schools very widely indeed, and is one in which everyone of us is deeply concerned. I do not think any of us have indicated that we appreciate that the President of the Board of Education has in this Bill given infinitely more generous terms to the Church schools than any previous holder of his office since 1870. That, is a fact which we ought to recognise and which I find is very widely recognised both among Catholics and members of the Church of England with whom I have discussed this matter.
I think this generous treatment is an indication of the fact that my right hon. Friend fully appreciates the invaluable part which Church schools of all denominations are playing in our system of national education, and he feels, I am sure, that it is desirable from every paint of view that these schools should be allowed to continue the work which they are doing. I do feel, therefore, that we should allow ourselves to be guided by my right hon. Friend as to which is the best way to enable these schools to meet the heavy costs which will fall upon them. We all recognise that these costs have been enormously increased, both as a result of the rise in the cost of building, and also as a result of the very much improved standards of all our school buildings. We who appreciate the work of the Church schools are conscious of the great part they have played in the past. I represent a constituency which never had a school board. The whole of the elementary education of Preston was carried on until 1902 entirely by Church schools. Incidentally, at the present time no fewer than two-thirds of the elementary schools of Preston are Church schools, and three-quarters of the children of Preston are being educated in these schools. It will be understood, therefore, that I have a double reason for wishing that the life of these schools should continue.
My right hon. Friend the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) stated the other day during a discussion on an Amendment, that a very small percentage of parents in this country are at all interested in the religious instruction in the schools. I think he was right, but I am quite sure that every one of us would agree that it is a most deplorable state of affairs. I do not think we should be unjustified in attributing that state of affairs very largely to 74 years of the Cooper-Temple Clause which has forbidden denominational instruction in school. One is very glad that this Bill contains provision for an immense improvement in the standard of religious instruction in schools. I am a member of a Committee which was set up by the Conservative Party some little time ago to issue reports on post-war education, and in that first report, which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) commented on in such


tremely complimentary terms a little while ago, we stated our views that we felt that these Church schools which have proved themselves worthy of support should have the support necessary to enable them to continue their existence. That is a view which I hold. I do not think any of us can deny that there are some Church schools which are not really making the effort they should make, but we would all agree that every possible help should be given to those schools which it is really worth while to help.
My right hon. Friend has made what I believe is, generally speaking, a pretty fair settlement where these Church schools are concerned. I believe that the new Clause which he has inserted in the Bill, which will enable managers of Church schools to raise loans on favourable terms, may prove in the long run to be as effective a way of helping our Church schools as the Amendment which we are now discussing. Quite frankly, there is only one thing with which I am concerned, and that is the best way of helping these schools, all of them, Church of England, Roman Catholic, Nonconformist, of enabling them to continue. That, it seems to me, must be a matter very largely of opinion and we are entitled to express our opinion upon that. I might say at the outset, to reassure my right hon. Friend, that if this Amendment is taken to a Division, I intend to support the Government. I do not intend to cast a Vote of no confidence in my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Denville (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central): On a point of Order. Are we to be threatened with the political punishment of a Vote of Censure if we fail to record our vote against our conscience? If so, there is no democracy in this Committee.

The Chairman: That is not a point of Order.

Captain Cobb: I do not intend my vote to involve me in expressing my confidence in other Ministers in whom I have somewhat less trust than I have in my right hon. Friend.
I have found that almost the whole of the opposition to the Church schools during the Debate in the Committee stage of this Bill has come from the Welsh Nonconformists. I have no doubt that they are perfectly sincere in their opposition,

and that they feel they have the best possible reasons for that opposition, but I do not think I have heard one single English Member, whatever his religion may be, express any kind of animosity or opposition to the Church schools. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend, therefore, since we are a representative assembly here, and since we want to get an expression of opinion here which will represent the feelings of the country, whether he will be prepared to allow the Committee a free vote on this issue? No one can possibly say that this is a question which affects anything except our own personal consciences. There can be no question of confidence in the Government involved in this. It is purely a question of what we think is likely to be the best way to ensure the continued existence of these schools. It may be that I should not wish to support this Amendment when I have heard what my right hon. Friend has had to say on the subject. I am prepared to be guided by him in this matter as I have had the wisdom to be guided during the course of the Bill.

Mr. Leach: In view of the speeches to which we have already listened, I feel obliged to say that I belong to no religious denomination. I am supporting this Amendment purely and simply on educational grounds as the financial burden placed on non-provided education is sufficiently harsh and severe. The right hon. Gentleman himself has, in his own White Paper, recognised the effect on non-provided schools. I would remind him that in his own White Paper of last July, in paragraph 46, he says:
Much capital expenditure will be needed on these schools. …
He says further:
It will be beyond the financial resources of most Managers to meet unaided the bill. …
And in paragraph 50 there are these words:
… non-provided schools will be required, if they are to continue, to shoulder a financial burden in excess of their capacity.
I suggest that the proposals in this Bill and in this Clause are not measuring up to the gravity of the words used there. It is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman does not want non-provided education to perish, or he would have abolished the whole system. I do not believe that the nation realises what it owes to the


denominations who have done their national duty in this matter for so long.
As Sir Michael Sadleir has said, "Denominational education is not something which merits a fine." Prior to 1870 there was no dual system. All our elementary schools up to then were run and owned by religious denominations. In 1870 schools were established which were to be built and run out of public money and to be publicly owned. This dual system has continued ever since, but with increasing modification. From 1870 to 1902 the voluntary or denominational schools, with no aid from public funds for buildings or maintenance, passed through 30 years of disastrous competition. Although they had kept the lamp of education burning so long, the State did nothing on their behalf; and, indeed, there was a fierce and deliberate attempt to starve them out. With smaller education grants, they paid their teachers less, they had less equipment, they had worse class-rooms and inferior apparatus; but somehow they contrived to exist, and even to increase in number. Surely, that was a tribute to the seriousness of the people responsible for them.
In these 32 years they shouldered by far the larger part of the national debt of education. This became so clear to the House of Commons that in 1902 the State took over the responsibility for paying their teachers, for wear and tear of buildings, and for other small financial assistance. Later, the right to charge fees in elementary schools was abolished, and this placed further burdens on the denominational, or, as they are now called, non-provided schools. The 1902 Act, bitterly resisted by the Nonconformists, introduced a new phenomenon known as passive resistance. Led by the late highly-respected Dr. Clifford, they objected to the payment of that small amount which they calculated went to pay for the teaching of religious denominational instruction. They acted entirely oblivious of the fact that provided schools were all giving religious instruction, which satisfied them and for which Anglicans, Catholics and Jews paid without demur. This silly little rebellion very soon finished.

Mr. Lindsay: Silly little rebellion?

Mr. Leach: Silly little rebellion. I maintain that so long as the nation insists on religious education in its own

schools, all religious bodies running their own schools possess an unchallengeable right to full financial assistance. They must, of course, grant adequate representation to the local authorities on their governing bodies, and they must toe the education line which is set for them. On these two very important matters no trouble of any serious kind has ever arisen. As ratepayers and as taxpayers, the denominationalists have not grumbled at paying their full share of religious education costs. Look at the position which we have reached to-day. On the one hand, there is a set of elementary schools built and run from rates and taxes. In them is given a form of religious instruction perfectly satisfactory to Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists, Quakers, Christian Scientists, and a score of others. So satisfied are they, that practically the whole of their schools have disappeared and been merged into the national system. On the other hand, another set of elementary schools, built and run by Jews, Anglicans, and Catholics, with aid from rates and taxes, is obliged to find a proportion of the building and running costs out of private resources. This is not too pleasing a picture.
Out of these facts has been built a very strange assumption. It is that Jews, Anglicans and Catholics must pay their full share of costs for provided schools, but must not expect reciprocal treatment for their own schools. The huge debt which the nation owes to them for scores of years of shouldering the great national burden of education seems to count for nothing. If I may say so without offence, there is something a little low-down in the attitude of the Nonconformists, who, having received a tax and rate contribution from the Anglicans, decline to meet their own obligations to the schools of the Anglicans. All these schools, provided and non-provided alike, have for 41 years been incorporated into the educational system of this country. The education given in both of them must toe a common line, and it conforms to a standard set by the State. Surely it is the business of the State and of the education authorities to pay for all education which they approve. In this connection, it is decidedly odd that the principle for which we are appealing in this Amendment has been law for 40 years for all education other than elementary. It is quite lawful for a public authority to bear


all the costs of a Roman Catholic secondary school. An Anglican missionary who started a class for adults in Esperanto would be eligible for 100 per cent. grant, if the local education authority approved of what he was doing; and quite rightly so. If what is right for higher education is wrong for elementary education, I should like my friends the two Ministers concerned, to tell me why.
There are 10,553 non-provided schools. What is the problem that faces the managers of those schools? They have a 50 per cent. grant for improvements, and possibly 50 per cent. grant for new buildings. I look upon these grants as hopelessly insufficient. I repeat that, by insisting on a form of religious instruction in our own council schools, we have given the voluntary schools an unchallengeable right to full financial assistance. These school managers who have saved the public the cost of building these 10,000 schools are ratepayers and taxpayers. The people they represent, out of whose pockets the money comes, are also ratepayers and taxpayers. They have paid, and are paying, their full legal share of the building and upkeep charges of all the provided schools. They carry, therefore, a double burden. They have never yet started a passive resistance movement about that. There is something incongruous about the fact that their schools should still depend on private money. The spectacle of governing bodies carrying out work so necessary to the State, and of such great national importance, still anxiously worrying their heads about finance, is bad. I want to see every school with an equal chance to be made fit and worthy, and I do not know of any other plan than that suggested in this Amendment which would secure that end. My own local education committee in Bradford has passed a resolution asking that 75 per cent. grant should be made to the non-provided schools of the country.
Here is a further point which is, I think, of some importance. Since 1902 we have been helping non-provided education on an ever-increasing scale. If it is right to spend money in this way, what is the right stopping place? For good or ill, we have embarked on this course. What is wrong with going the whole hog. I know that m that respect I seem to be pleading 101 100 per cent. grant; I only wish that we could get it. If 50 per cent. is to be the building grant, what is there sacred

about that figure? It does not ensure at schools. It continues a grievance of long standing. It ensures that one set of schools shall be inferior to another. It leaves the position lop-sided. So far back as in May, 1923, the following Motion was carried nemine contradicente in this House:
That the present system of imposing upon the Catholics of England the burden of building their own schools is contrary to religious and economic equality, and that the system of complete educational equality existing in Scotland should, with the necessary changes, be adopted in England."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1923; col. 1552, Vol. 163.]
That Motion was moved by the late Mr. T. P. O'Connor, and seconded by my friend Lord Passfield, then Mr. Sidney Webb. There was a Labour Government in office at that time. Reference has been made to the fact that Scotland has solved this problem. Holland did not have to solve this problem. For 23 years, with 2,680 Catholic schools, there has been absolute financial parity there between all types of schools. In Southern Ireland, if I dare quote that country, with 573 Protestant schools out of 2,114, financial parity also rules. In these three countries the problem has been satisfactorily solved, and, given the will, it could be solved here.
I regard this as a great Bill. I have seen Press comments to the effect that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Education is a great Minister, second only to the late Mr. Fisher. I differ entirely from that judgment. I place him a good deal higher. The combination of the Minister himself and his Parliamentary Secretary is about as powerful a one as this House has seen for many years in piloting any kind of Bill, and I wish them luck in that very difficult task. I would add my plea to that of the last speaker that the two Ministers should consent to free this issue from the Whips. They should leave it to the free decision of the Committee, and not involve those of us who feel deeply on this subject, in the embarrassment that many unfortunate hon. Members suffered last week. I hope the Ministers can see their way to oblige us in that respect.

The Chairman: As so many hon. Members, obviously, wish to speak, I might perhaps, with the approval of the Committee, venture to suggest shorter speeches. We have had quite a number of speeches of great length, some of them


historical disquisitions, and the point is not really a wide one. I hope hon. Members will be more brief.

Mr. Cove: On a point of Order. I take it that that does not exclude the point about the comparison of this Amendment with the new Clause?

The Chairman: Not in any way, I understand that my predecessor ruled that reference might be made to the new Clause.

Mr. W. J. Brown: On a point of Order. I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, before we have what is evidently going to be quite a large number of speeches, even if they are short speeches, we could have a brief intervention from the President, or the Parliamentary Secretary, on the question whether we are to have a free vote on this matter. Many of us feel that, if the vote is not going to be free, there is no point in listening to the speeches.

Earl Winterton: In view of the point put by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), will the Chair make quite clear—I am in complete sympathy with what you, Major Milner, have said, but it is important from the point of view of future procedure—that, while you, as you were fully entitled to do, have suggested to the Committee that the speeches should be shorter, no power is given to the Chair to shorten speeches? That should be made clear. I realise the difficulty but, frankly, we cannot discuss the matter intelligently, unless we can discuss the Clause which the Minister is going to propose.

The Chairman: I am, of course, in the hands of the Committee, and the Committee knows that I am very averse to intervention when an hon. Member is speaking unless I have to do so. I hope that, with the good will of the Committee, we may now make some progress.

Mr. Henry Brooke: I will endeavour to follow your advice, Major Milner, watch the clock, and set a good example. The point that has struck me is the series of speeches, from such a variety of standpoints, all in favour of the Amendment. It is a tribute to the spirit in which this Committee has approached what the Minister knows, better

than anyone else, is not an easy matter, and it shows the importance which we all attach to it. I was particularly grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Captain Cobb) for reminding the Committee that the issues raised by this Amendment concern the Church of England just as vitally as Roman Catholic. It it not for me to say what type of school is most valuable in the community. I think we are all proudest of the schools in which we ourselves are interested. But in number there are seven or eight times as many Church of England schools as Roman Catholic, so it is right that members of the Church of England should intervene in this Debate. I do not know what is the experience of other hon. Members, but in my constituency the Church of England through its Ruri-decanal Conference approached me on the question of the 50 per cent. grant being inadequate, before the Roman Catholics in the district did so. I have no complaints whatever about the character of the representations made to me from any quarter within my constituency, though, with the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), I regret the spirit of some of the printed documents circulated to hon. Members.
I must impress upon the Committee the enormous cost that will fall, at any rate upon the Church of England, if the figure remains at 50 per cent. I am not going to give detailed calculations, but I have seen certain figures for the diocese in which my constituents are situated, and, if these are typical, the figure of the financial burden over the country as a whole is going to be very high, and that at a time, as the Committee will realise, when the Church, like the Free Churches, as well as the Roman Catholics, have got to meet very many heavy extra commitments in other directions.

Mr. Lindsay: The Church of England did agree, I think, to a compromise on what is called the balance?

Mr. Brooke: It is true that the Church of England has always made it clear that it intended to work the Bill, and that it was certainly not going to take any steps towards wrecking the Bill, even if it was discovered that Parliament was not prepared to grant more than 50 per cent. At the same time, the Church of England knows perfectly well the weight of the burden which the finding of the 50 per cent. would cast upon it, and it would


dearly like it, if Parliament, in its wisdom, considered that a higher figure than 50 per cent. could be granted.
I would support this Amendment myself wholeheartedly, subject to two provisos. The first is that the moving of an Amendment like this should not create the impression in the country that the Churches are interested in materialistic matters, and put business first and religion nowhere. Most fortunately, the spirit in which the hon. Member for Leigh moved the Amendment, showed that there was no spirit of that kind in his mind, nor is there in the mind of the Committee. It is well-known to the Committee that that is not the moving influence in this matter. My other proviso is that the acceptance of a higher figure than 50 per cent. should not cause any revival of sectarian bitterness in the country outside this Committee. It would be disastrous for the future of religious education if anything were to be done in this House, or outside, which would restart that kind of sectarian bitterness which has done so much harm, inside our schools and outside, in the past.
I place my faith in the Government's own statement. In their Explanatory Memorandum, in paragraph 19, it is stated:
The object of the Bill is to enable the auxiliary, no less than the county, schools to play an effective part in the education of the future.
That purpose has been accepted by the House and by this Committee. The dual system is to continue. We have, therefore, got to frame the financial provisions so that it can continue, and that depends on this grant, and I plead once again with my right hon. Friend, who has already shown his generosity towards the Church schools of all denominations—I warmly acknowledge that—to see if he cannot be still more generous.

Mr. Cove: We have now arrived at a vital point in this Bill. There is no doubt about it that this issue is the vital issue in all these Clauses. We have debated the educational side of the Bill, and, from this side of the Committee, we have gone into the Lobby for the raising of the school-leaving age—officially—for the abolition of fees, and we have been—

Colonel Evans: Will the hon. Member tell the Committee what he means by "officially"?

Mr. Cove: The Labour Party, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), as a matter of party policy, have voted on two main educational issues raised in the Bill. We went into the Lobby and we have been defeated. The educational side of the Bill, therefore, is not by any means what we wanted or expected. As a matter of fact, to me—and I hope my hon. Friends will realise it—the tragedy of this Bill is that we are now passing a provision so that you can get public money up to 75 per cent., or, with the Minister's new Clause, a loan of public money, to keep Church schools in being without raising the school-leaving age by a single day for a single child. That is the issue. We are, therefore, faced with what is the real essence and content of this Bill, and it is not educational, but religious. This Amendment, as a matter of fact, directly relates to the dual system. So far as I am concerned, as I see it, I am faced with a choice between a straight 75 per cent. grant and a system of loans that has been embodied in the new Clause put down by the Minister. Both are designed to assist the Church schools, but I take it that there is no other purpose in them. It is true that the Committee has agreed definitely to the continuance of the dual system, and it is now clear that we are faced with the problem of the method by which we are to maintain that dual system.
I would, with all humility, say to my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee that I would much prefer supporting a 75 per cent. grant than loans for the dual system. I know that my Roman Catholic friends will keep their schools, and I know that they are situated in the industrial areas. In every country that I have read about, whatever action has been taken, so far as I can ascertain, Roman Catholics have been able to keep their schools going. They are, in a certain way, outside our control, but, in this country, we have another problem of educational administration. I may as well be quite open about it. So far as it concerns the teachers, the profession generally, and promotions to headships, the Church of England stands hard and fast.
The 75 per cent. under the 1936 Act was not responded to by the Church of England. We offered in the 1936 Act a minimum of 50 per cent. and a maximum of 75 per cent. What happened? I am


merely putting this objectively, because I am not going to give the figures, as they are in a private and confidential document, from which I do not want to quote, But the Committee may take it from me that it is true and that the Roman Catholic Church did find 25 per cent. for many schools. The Church of England failed. I am afraid that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman for State loans for the fraction above the grant is not so much for the schools of the Catholic Church as for the preservation of Church of England schools in certain school areas. There are in this country 4,000 odd Church of England schools in single-school areas. [Interruption.] I think I am about right.

Mr. Ede: Just over 4,000.

Mr. Cove: There are 4,000 Church schools in these areas. The Roman Catholic people say, as I understand it, "You should have schools where the education given to children is related to the religious opinions of the parent." I do not entirely agree with that. I think that the Roman Catholics would agree that what they are really saying is, that they agree that the education given in these schools should be education conformable to the opinion of the parents so long as they were Roman Catholics. They would not agree if they were atheists or pagans. Here in rural England you are cutting right across that principle. In 4,000 villages you are compelling the children of Nonconformist parents, Liberal parents, and Socialist parents to send their children to the Church of England school, and that is fundamentally wrong. I turn to my hon. Friends and say—and I can prove it, if anybody challenges me—that this does not mean merely a religious issue. It is not merely concerned with the souls of these little children and the hereafter, but it is concerned with the social and political power of the squire and his wife, and the parson and his wife in the villages.

Mr. Gallacher: In Tory strongholds.

Mr. Cove: That is right; Tory strongholds throughout rural England resting on State endowments of the Church schools in those villages. Therefore, I say to my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, we are not merely concerned with the religious issue but with a deep politi-

cal issue. [Interruption.] If anybody on the opposite side of the Committee disagrees with me, I really could quote from this brilliant document which I hold in my hand.

The Chairman: The hon. Member cannot be a law unto himself.

Mr. Cove: I am not a law unto myself. I have obeyed the law every time. I say again quite definitely, that not only is there a religious issue raised in this, but a deep political issue. I am driven by the Amendment to the Clause to choose, and I repeat what I said before, that I would rather go into the Lobby for 75 per cent. than I would have a State loan. The Minister may say that he lays down certain conditions, but there are no conditions in the Clause of the Bill. I could not go into the Lobby in support of a State loan. I do not want the State to have a sort of usury connection with the Church. I want us to be free. Therefore, I say to my hon. Friends, briefly and definitely, "Let us go for the 75 per cent. rather than for a State loan." A State loan involves definitely a resuscitation and development of Church of England schools throughout the villages of England. In all these Debates they have, like the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke), offered to co-operate but not one move have they made towards our position, and, therefore, I hope the Committee will agree that one of the finest things we can do is to sweep England of these schools in the single-school areas.

Sir Joseph Nall: I am rather sorry that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) has produced an archaic argument which might have applied to the Middle Ages in relation to the problem we are now discussing. The Amendment was moved primarily from the Roman Catholic point of view and I certainly support it on those grounds, but other speakers have been acquainted with the fact that it affects a much wider range of voluntary schools, including Church of England schools and others. I would like, within the financial limits that we are obliged to observe in discussing this matter, to put this point to the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach) mentioned that there are some 10,500 elementary schools which might be involved by this provision. The Committee, and certainly


public opinion outside, should realise that that is slightly more than half the total number of elementary schools. Besides the 10,500 elementary schools there are some 10,300 council schools. We are dealing with a very considerable proportion of the elementary school organisation as it exists to-day. It is represented in some quarters that, if this concession of what appears to be more generous treatment is conceded, it will in fact impose a burden on the public purse and that those of us who are supporting the Amendment are asking for public funds to be unnecessarily extended.
I beg the Committee to appreciate that if this Bill goes through on a basis which makes it impossible for many or any of these schools to continue, the cost which will accrue to public funds will not be 50 per cent. or the 75 per cent. which is now asked for in relation to the existing schools, but will be 100 per cent. for another school to take its place. Therefore, as far as the State can preserve the existing organisation of the elementary schools, to put it on the most sordid ground, it will in fact save money for the Exchequer. Very unfortunate arguments are raised outside—I am glad to say, not inside the Committee—that the denominations are asking for money from public funds and that it will be a burden on the taxpayer. In fact, we are asking, in the name of common justice to the denominations which have done so much, for an Amendment, which so far as the mere sordid element of finance is concerned, will save public funds from further expenditure.
That wants emphasising, and I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb) has made it clear that the Church of England is involved in this matter as well as the Catholic community. I represent a part of the City of Manchester where there are equally comparable examples of three kinds of elementary schools. There is a very large Roman Catholic school, one of the most efficient in the city; there are Church schools, some of the most efficient in the city; and there are council schools, again, some of the most efficient in the city; and there are others. I am merely thinking of the most efficient examples, and they are spread over Roman Catholic, Church of England and council schools.

If any of these have to be suppressed because of lack of financial ability to carry on, the cost will be greater to the State and to the community than it will be if this Amendment is conceded enabling them to carry on. The matter goes further than that. There has been some talk of the single-school area. I know of a single-school area where the school is a non-provided Nonconformist school. Do not let the Committee assume that this is only a Catholic question. Of the 10,500 schools my hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford spoke of, 119 are Wesleyan schools and 176 are of other denominations than the Church or Roman Catholic.

Mr. Hughes: Can the hon. Member give information as to the single-school area which has a Nonconformist denominational school?

Sir J. Nall: Yes, I have in mind a village in Nottinghamshire, which is a single-school area, where there has been a non-provided Nonconformist school for a number of years.

Sir Herbert Holdsworth: There are 119 such schools throughout the country.

Sir J. Nall: There are 119 Wesleyan schools and 176 others, according to the official figures. Is it fair that, where a school is in being, is efficient and adequate, it should be closed down and another school provided at the public expense merely because we are haggling about the proportion of grant which is to be paid in each of these schools? This matter goes beyond the Catholic community and the Church of England. They may be few, but there are others, some of them Nonconformist single-school areas, who are just as concerned and just as anxious.
There is no question of efficiency in this thing, and if we bring it down to the sordid basis of money, there is no additional expenditure to the State. Actually, by conceding this Amendment, which I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to do, the Exchequer will be eased of its burden and the progress of the Bill will be expedited.

Major Woolley: May I ask the hon. Member whether he is implying the desire of the Nonconformists to retain all the single schools? Is that the point he was making?

Sir J. Nall: I have had no indication that any of thorn wish to give up.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Hughes: It is proper that the Committee and the country should know that the views so far expressed by those who have been fortunate enough to catch your eye, Major Milner, do not reflect the views of this country as a whole. Every single person who has spoken so far has spoken in favour of the Amendment. It is true that the song has ranged over different keys. The hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke), knowing perfectly well that the authorities for whom he speaks had been more than delighted with offer of 50 per cent. of their capital cost, did not dare to come before the Committee and say, as my Roman Catholic friends have done, "It is right and proper we should get this." He merely hoped that if my Roman Catholic friends, by their emphasis and urgency, were to get the 75 per cent., he and his cohorts would be able to walk in their trail and shadow and get the same. But he was not against it. Then, in another different key, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) was not against the Amendment, and he struck a balance between the Amendment and a future Clause for easy loans which may or may not, in the wisdom of the Committee, become part of this Bill. So far I have the honour to be the first Member to address the Committee and to say in definite concrete terms that I am against increasing the 50 per cent. to 75 per cent.

Mr. Cove: And the loans?

Mr. Hughes: If the Chair is good enough to call me when the new Clause comes before the Committee, I shall be very glad to inform the Committee of my views upon it. I think the Committee should differentiate between the position of the Roman Catholics and the Anglicans in this matter. The demand made by the one denomination and the other is entirely different. The Catholic attitude, as I understand it, is an attitude by which they say, "We want a school run by Catholics, for Catholics and for nobody else." That is their object. The Church of England, on the other hand, says, "We want Church of England schools, not only for those who are adherents of the Church of England, those who wish for Church of England schools, but for

anybody else who happens to be in the area." That applies not only to single-school areas but to other areas as well. We cannot differentiate on the provisions of the Clause before us. We must take them together. It is a question of 50 per cent. or 75 per cent.
This 50 per cent., as has been said again and again, is a compromise. I am not going to repeat what was stated on the Second Reading, but it is an exceedingly generous compromise. It involves giving, with very little public control, sums amounting to between 96 per cent. and 97 per cent. outside public control for the education of children. There has been some contention that it should not involve anything, but, after all, the very essence of the demand made by my Roman Catholic friends is that your communal schools, your publicly-owned, publicly-controlled, publicly-run schools are not good enough for them. That is the claim. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Exactly; they are not good enough for you. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] You want for your Catholic children as good an education as children can get in the ordinary publicly-controlled schools—

Colonel A. Evans: May I interrupt to ask a question? I think it has been made clear from the Catholic point of view, that Catholics accept the educational standard laid down by the President of the Board of Education. But if my hon. and learned Friend is speaking officially on behalf of the Free Churches, will he indicate his attitude to the proposal of my right hon. Friend in reference OD loans, because that is very important?

Mr. Hughes: I will deal with the point I was making when interrupted by my hon. and gallant Friend. I said that my Catholic friends want education from an educational standpoint as good as that provided in the State-owned and provided schools. But they want more. They want schools which are primarily designed not for educational purposes but in order to make good Catholics. That is why I respect their views. Emphasis has been laid by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. W. Leach) or the question of approaching them from some educational standpoint. As far as the Roman Catholics are concerned, that is purely secondary; the main purpose they have in mind in the sacrifices they


have made to establish and maintain these schools is that they must have Catholic schools to make good Roman Catholics. That is to say, they want something more than is provided by the ordinary State-controlled system, and I say as a Nonconformist, "It is not too much to ask that you should pay for that." I believe in two things from the religious point of view. I believe, first, in tolerance. I do not belong to the Catholic Church. There are Members on the benches opposite who belong to the Catholic Church, and Members on this side belong to the Catholic Church—

Mr. Kirkwood: Is there a more tolerant person than the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker)?

Mr. Hughes: Catholicism in religion, means intolerance from the religious point of view. No Nonconformist claims to be universal; he is prepared to accept the differences of other denominations.

Mr. Logan: On a point of Order. I do not want to interrupt, but is this kind of statement to be allowed without any allusion being made to it? Are we to have a discussion on it, Major Milner?

The Chairman: I thought the hon. and learned Member was tending to go too far. I hope he will not persist.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for the tolerance of the Chair. That is one aspect, but the other aspect is of sacrifice for your religious beliefs. Our denomination was established by sacrifice. It is the only way. We have never grumbled at it, and, if you treat schools as part of your religious system, you must be prepared to contribute something towards them. In fact, we are going in this Bill a very long way towards making it easy for them to do so. We have gone, as I have said, to the tune of 96 per cent. or 97 per cent. of the total cost of the new schools. We are shortly to have a Clause—and I suppose I may just refer to it—under which it will be made easy for the other two per cent. or three per cent. to be found. That, I submit to the Committee, is a very fair, generous, tolerant attitude towards a minority of our people. With that tolerant attitude I heartily agree. I think the basis of compromise on that tolerance has been achieved in the 50 per cent. and I hope

the President will reject the 75 per cent. If it is carried to the Lobby, I hope that the Committee will reject the increase above the compromise arrived at.

Mr. Gallacher: Major Milner—

Major Procter: On a point of Order. Is it right for the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) to take unfair advantage by standing up and calling out your name when other people are talking?

Mr. Gallacher: Further to that point of Order, Major Milner, before you reply—

Hon. Members: Order.

The Chairman: In the desire to be called it is not unusual to call the Chairman's name.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that my conduct has been questioned, I want to ask you, Major Milner, if it is not the fact that on one occasion the Chairman told me that if I did not catch his eye when I stood up, I should call his name.

Sir George Schuster: I had intended to confine myself to two sentences, but I must say a word about the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes). I want to put it to him that there are some of us who feel seriously about religious education—and I am not speaking as a Catholic—and who consider that it is not something to which one's right ought to depend on ability to pay. It offends my conscience very much that the chance of parents to get the kind of religious education they want for their children should depend on the mere chance whether some members of the community have money. Some of us feel that sincerely, and it is because of that, that I for one made clear the other day that I had great sympathy with the hon. Member who moved this Amendment. I believe that was widely felt in the Committee and I put it on this ground, that we do not want this financial obstacle—the difficulty caused by this sudden need of expenditure on buildings—to be used as a lever for driving the denominational schools, whether Roman Catholic or Methodist, out of existence.
As I see it we have now to consider a very closely defined point in this Debate. If I interpret the Minister aright, he has taken account of the feeling in the Com-


mittee to which I have referred and he has tried to offer a means whereby this financial obstacle shall not be used as an artificial lever to drive out the denominational schools. The only question in my mind has been, Which is the best way to achieve this object—the way proposed in the Amendment or the way proposed by the Minister? I speak with very great diffidence as an adviser to those hon. Members here who represent the Catholic Church; but if I might express my own view, then, quite honestly, as one who wishes them well, I would if I were in their position, unhesitatingly opt for the proposals of the Minister. That is the way by which they can achieve most nearly what is wanted. They would be faced with no sudden intolerable financial burden.
It would in a matter of loan interest spread over many years. The hon. Member for Leigh quoted figures of capital expenditure. I believe he rather underestimated the increase in building costs, so that the immediate burden might well be heavier than he reckoned. If the Roman Catholics have a chance of raising money on loan at low rates of interest—and I think we are entitled to assume that the Minister will be generous as regards interest rates and that the Government will be sensible and in the future will maintain the low interest policy which they have carried through successfully in this war—then I think this extra burden can be carried without difficulty. But if the 25 per cent. capital share had to be found at once that might prove a serious stumbling block. Therefore I personally, not because I want to support the Government, but because I believe it to be best for the cause for which hon. Members opposite stand, shall support the Minister's alternative proposal.

Mr. Greenwood: During the Debate on this Bill I have never shown any kind of religious bias nor have I tried in any way to add to the passions which have been aroused on certain occasions, particularly to-day. I regard this Bill as an Education Bill, and judge it from that point of view. I accept the fact, now accepted by the Committee, that the dual system continues. There may be arguments as to whether that is right or wrong, but that has been accepted and its implications must be accepted. I said in the Second Reading Debate, with the ap-

proval of the overwhelming majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that we regarded the Minister's proposals as a generous solution of the problem. I believe I indicated that we should have to consider this problem—and I am speaking now purely on the basis of an Education Bill—if any further proposals were made. I take no exception whatever to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), who did not import the same amount of feeling into this matter as has been imported into many letters I have had from some of his supporters, both in this country and abroad. My hon. Friend stated his case very cogently, but I must repeat that I, and the majority of my friends and Members of the Committee, regard the 50 per cent. as being a generous offer to the Catholic Church. [HON. MEMBERS: "To all Churches?"] To all Churches, but I will come to that point in a moment; it is primarily to the Roman Catholic Church. They have argued their case rightly, but on these issues men and women are entitled to exercise their own judgment in matters of conscience, and the truth is that the majority of the people of this country, judging by my own correspondence—and it is not inconsiderable—think that the proposal made by the President is a generous proposal.
Therefore, most of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I must, of course, oppose the Amendment now before the Committee. But my right hon. Friend the Minister has put down a new Clause on the Order Paper, and I do not take the view, which has been expressed on both sides of the Committee, that this is an unwise proposal. Again looking at the matter from a purely educational point of view, I think my right hon. Friend has met what is a difficult situation from the point of view of educational development of buildings in this country. I am told that this matter is not merely concerned with the Roman Catholic Church. If my memory is right the Church of England itself was some sort of party to the 50 per cent. basis and it is a little difficult for the Members of the Committee, who are members of the Church of England, to try this "pepping up" process, hiding, as it were, behind the skirts of the Catholic Church. While the Minister has met not the demand of the English Church but the demand of the Roman Catholic Church I hope it


does not mean automatically extending his proposal of loans to every single-school area. I am not talking religion but politics and sheer hard finance in this matter, and I hope my right hon. Friend will have this in mind. Accepting the dual system and the fact that we have a very large number of schools very unfit for their purpose to-day, and accepting the fact that Church authorities have had responsibility imposed upon them, I myself see no injustice to any Church or any class of citizen if the State, by arrangement of loans, enables these Church authorities to develop their school buildings and equipment to bring them up to the agreed national standard. That, I suggest, is fair.
I think my right hon. Friend would offend against the sense of the Committee and the country if he were to accept the Amendment now before the Committee, but I do commend him for having faced what is undoubtedly an important problem, namely, that of permitting the religious bodies which conduct schools to obtain loans which would enable them to raise the standard of their accommodation and equipment to the level required by the law. Having listened to my right hon. Friend I hope the Committee will agree to stand by the original compromise, coupled with the new proposal he makes—

Mr. Cove: Without loans?

Mr. Greenwood: I wish my hon. Friend would not be so emotional.

Mr. Cove: I am not emotional.

Mr. Greenwood: I was in the middle of a sentence. I was saying that I hoped the Committee would stand by a reasonable compromise, as it was arranged, coupled with agreement to support the new Clause when it comes to be raised.

Mr. Butler: I am sure the Government will be very much obliged to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) for the language he has used and the support he has given to the policy of the Government in this matter, and I am sure the Committee will feel that those Roman Catholic Members who have taken part in the Debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), have expressed their case with great moderation. There has also

been, fortunately, practically no sign, in our Debates, of any feeling against the Roman Catholic schools or the Roman Catholics who wish to continue to conduct education in the atmosphere they desire. I hasten to say that there will be nothing in my remarks either, which could be construed in that sense. In fact, I would like to acknowledge at once the handsome withdrawal of certain methods of propaganda which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh. I bear no ill-will for the campaign which has been conducted and I hope I shall take what comes to me in the right spirit. In any event, I learn every day.
Coming to the Amendment, I am requested by the mover and his supporters to go above the 50 per cent. offer which has been included as part of this Bill. Let me say at once that the Government are not prepared to go above that 50 per cent. offer. But let me argue the case, because this is one on which hon. Members feel deeply. I hope they will see that the Government are trying to do their best to meet the points of view of hon. Members and that they are fully alive to the seriousness of the issue before us. I think it has only come out in the course of our Debate to-day, that this is not a concession to the Roman Catholics alone. If this concession is made, it must be made to the whole range of denominational schools.

Mr. Cove: And the loans?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member may be assured that I shall not burke the issue, and that I shall explain to him how my ideas are better than his. But as this is rather a difficult subject, perhaps I might be allowed to pursue my own arguments. There can be no line drawn within the denominational world. At various times in our discussions on these matters during the last few years we have wondered whether a line could be drawn here or there in the denominational range, but it is quite impossible. Any concession that is made must, as I have said, be made to the whole range of denominational schools. That means that this concession of raising the grant in the Bill would have to be applied not only to the 1,200 Roman Catholic schools, but also to the 10,000 Church of England departments that exist. That would mean that the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke), namely, that the pro-


posal to raise the grant to that extent for so many schools would exacerbate the feeling in the country and endanger the settlement that has been reached, would certainly be realised.
Therefore, if I may take it that that was the tenor of his speech, I would say that this proposal, if accepted by the Committee, would endanger the whole settlement and in my view exacerbate the chances of religious understanding. Why would that be so? It would be so because it would be possible then for every Anglican school to receive, if it chose to put up the remainder, a grant of 75 per cent. The result would be—I am not shirking the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield—that the problem of the single-school area would be exacerbated. When I come to the alternative proposal, I shall indicate how the Government propose to limit the scope of the proposal. We want to avoid an unlimited extra grant with all the consequences it entails of extra exacerbation and the proposal I have placed on the Paper is made so as to give the opportunity of assisting denominational schools to meet their difficulties in a way that will limit the area of exacerbation. So, I am unhesitatingly recommending the Committee to follow the Government lead.
Let us examine the position. Anybody who followed the Debates in 1902 would be astonished at the good humour and moderation shown on all sides in this Debate, and would be equally astonished to notice the generosity of the offer made by the Government to Church schools as a whole. I am grateful for the many acknowledgments that have been made on all sides of the Committee in favour of the proposals. This proposal to give to the denominational schools a 50 per cent. grant for alterations and repairs, is superimposed on very much more generous terms for help with the running costs of denominational schools. The Committee must not examine this matter in isolation. We are not only giving grants in respect of what amounts to capital expenditure incurred in putting schools in order, which was not the case in 1902, but we are also so revising the liabilities and responsibilities of managers that from now on managers' responsibilities will be confined to external repairs. That is a very remarkable fact

which the Committee should bear in mind, and it is a fact which militates, I think, against acceptance of the Amendment put forward.
We have to look at the picture as a whole. Let us take a look therefore at the many other concessions made in the course of the passage of the Bill or included in the Bill. We have done our best to meet the denominations on the question of transport, which is a matter of great importance to the Roman Catholic community in scattered areas. We have done our best to deal with the question of bona fide transfer of schools necessitated by transfer of population, town planning or similar circumstances. We have done our best to deal with the provision of canteens and equipment, another matter of great importance, and we have done our best to deal with the very difficult question of the extension of playing fields or the provision of playing fields. On all these matters, we have done our best. We have, further, reopened the 1936 Act—in this case without a time limit—and we have purposely offered to denominational secondary schools an opportunity, from now on, to have teachers' salaries paid from public funds. It may be that many Roman Catholic schools will find aided status more attractive than any other.
I want to be quite frank with my Roman Catholic friends. They have put many arguments to me and I have examined their figures. Accepting their figures of the cost of carrying out these measures over a number of years, I would point out that in fact they would receive £16,000,000 of public money under the Bill as originally drafted without taking into account the many concessions made in the course of its passage. Moreover, as has been put by many representatives of the Free Churches and others, this 50 per cent. is not accompanied by forms of control which Roman Catholics could not accept. I therefore think that if they look at the picture as a whole, they will feel that the Government have gone a very long way to make it possible for voluntary managers to meet the costs.
There is then the question whether it will be possible for voluntary managers to raise the necessary sums of money to meet their liabilities under this scheme. I have been anxious about what will be the effect, if attempts are made by all


managers, who must keep the atmosphere of their schools, to raise money at one and the same time, and I have been struck by the fact that the denominations very often will have just as much school building and repair work to undertake as local authorities. Therefore, I came to the conclusion that there is no case for treating the denominations differently from the local authorities. The local authorities are permitted to borrow on certain terms, and I do not see why a poor local authority should obtain certain business terms from the public loans fund and the denominations should be unable to obtain similar terms. I came to the conclusion, and my colleagues agree with me, that the most equitable manner in which to work this scheme, would be to place the denominations on the same sort of basis as the local authorities, in the matter of raising money.
This leads me to the other great point which I have always tried to make. The Government have tried to help in the matter of running costs, apart from capital expenditure. But we have to face the position that unless the denominations can obtain suitable rates of interest they will find it very hard to fulfil their obligations. It is, in terms of interest and redemption charges, that the denominations should regard their liabilities, and not the raising of a global capital sum at once. If the Roman Catholics have to raise between £9,000,000 and £10,000,000 the position must be looked at in terms of annual charges for interest and redemption. Interest and redemption work out at a much less alarming figure than the capital global cost. I have worked out the position, and I find that while the interest and redemption charges under the original proposals of the Government, if they were not able to obtain terms equivalent to those obtained by the local authorities, would work out at about £590,000 ultimately—but much less in the first year—under the new proposal for rates of interest similar to those charged to the local authority, the cost would be reduced to about £430,000 ultimately.

Mr. Cove: Is that for capital and interest?

Mr. Butler: That is capital and interest.

Mr. Cove: Is that comparable with the Church of England?

Mr. Butler: They get such a very large benefit from the controlled school scheme because under that scheme they would get all the expenses paid. The Roman Catholics could not accept controlled status. I cannot give exact figures in the case of the Church of England because I do not know how they will exercise their option.

Mr. Logan: Will the rate of interest be 4½ per cent.?

Mr. Butler: I am not going to give any exact figures but they would be, approximately, on the same basis. These loans will have to be agreed with the Treasury. Therefore, anybody who imagines that they will not be on, a businesslike basis will be very disappointed, because I can assure him that they will be controlled by the Treasury. Here I come to the most important point raised not only by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield but by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) and others.

Colonel A. Evans: May I ask whether the £430,000 is calculated on building costs 35 per cent. in advance of 1939?

Mr. Butler: The general figures have been based on an overall increase of 35 per cent., not only in building costs. Of course, building costs have gone up a great deal because of war circumstances, and I think it would be very unwise to take too pessimistic a view of what building costs are likely to be when the whole scheme is brought into operation, in stages, three or four years after the war.
Now I come to the important point put forward by the right hon. Member for Wakefield. I have put forward an alternative method of easing the burden for the denominations by enabling them to raise capital. I believe this system will work better, and it is not a bad thing that the discretion of the Minister is brought in. I, honestly, take the view that if this new scheme were to result in schools passing over to aided status, the whole balance of the scheme would be upset. I am fortified by what was said by the Bishop of London in the Church Assembly, that he himself felt that if these facilities were used to extend very greatly the number of schools in this category, it might provoke opposition and endanger the settlement. The Bishop went on to say that lest these facilities should be so used, it would be necessary


to provide that no loans should be granted, except with the consent of the President of the Board of Education and subject to his approval.
We have, therefore, included in our proposal, a provision that these loans shall be subject to the discretion of the Minister. Some machinery must be set up to ensure that loans cannot be indiscriminately used to perpetuate the grievance of the single-school area. I may have to discuss that with the Committee. Although we are giving an easement to the denominations it must be in such a way as not to exacerbate that grievance. I have proof that the leaders of the denominations themselves would welcome this method. In the Church Assembly of the Anglicans it was passed without any opposing voice. And I think I can say that the position of those who speak with authority for the Roman Catholic communities is somewhat as follows. They stand, and have consistently stood, for the principle that all expenses of Roman Catholic schools, no less than of county schools, should fall on public funds. That still remains their claim, and I feel sure that they would be entirely behind hon. Members in the Amendment they have on the Order Paper. But I am informed that the measure of assistance to Roman Catholic schools for which the Bill provides, including the new Clause, would go a considerable way to meeting many of their representations. Thus we have every reason to hope that, if the Government have their way and the Amendment is not carried, the Bill has a chance of operating in a better atmosphere than would have been possible before.
I appeal to hon. Members to take this opportunity to try to come to an understanding within the Committee, that the method the Government suggest is the best. We have a great future before us in working out this plan, and I trust that it may be possible even to avoid any sort of division on the matter. If so, I feel that it will be in the interest of the children, because by doing that, those who support the Amendment, would not be departing from their conscience, or from their public statements, but would be showing a generous attitude to the future which the Government would be the first to wish to reciprocate.

Mr. Stokes: I find myself in a somewhat awkward position in that I understood it

was the intention of the Minister to speak in the middle of the Debate, and tell us something about the new Clause and I was holding my fire until he had done so. Now, apparently, the Committee wish to divide at once. I must ask them to be patient for a few minutes. We attach the greatest importance to the Amendment. We are profoundly dissatisfied with the Minister's solution. I could wish that he had explained a little more fully what the Clause means. I jumped to the conclusion that it meant loans, including sinking fund, of approximately 4 per cent. I understand that it is 4½ per cent., therefore my figures are on the low side. The President's speech proves that what he is now offering is not adequate. He has made it possible for the denominational schools to shoulder the burden, but he has not helped us to carry it. The interest charge alone, over a period of 47 years, will amount to approximately £6,000,000, that is 60 per cent. more than we succeeded in collecting in 25 years, and when you have paid the £6,000,000, the schools are not yours. The sum total, based on a 35 per cent. increase in building costs, will be of the order of £16,000,000. The Minister said he had reason to believe that those who speak for the Church to which I belong thought they ought to have more, but that they can operate the Bill. All the figures that have been discussed have been based on this 35 per cent. increase in cost, and that is a frightfully important point. It has been said that this proposal is very generous to us. We do not deny that we get tremendous advantages under the Bill, but the point is, what is the remainder? The figure of 97 per cent. has been quoted by people who admit that they do not understand it. They fail of understand that the balance of 3 per cent. represents £10,000,000.

Sir G. Schuster: What I said was that, apart from the Bill and before the Bill was thought of, something like 95 per cent. of the cost of running the schools was paid for out of public money.

Mr. Stokes: That makes it more deplorable that the figure should have been used at all. We are left with £10,000,000 capital cost. I wish I could make my Friends on this side understand what we are after. We are afraid that, with this higher standard of education on which the Government are rightly insisting, our children may suffer, because we shall not


be able to afford to give them what the others will get. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) said that what would happen with these denominational schools is that they would be told to carry on the best way they could. Who will suffer? The children. We are fighting against that. We are fighting, on the other hand, against the possibility of an unpleasant Government, if you like, o: local authority, and the possibility that because we cannot find hinds sufficient to come up to the standard that they demand—and no one has yet defined what that standard is—we shall be closed down. We are not seeking to grab for ourselves. What Catholic Members on this side want is to have schools provided by the State with Catholic teachers in them. It is absurd to sugest that we want anything different from that.
Another point often misunderstood is this. There is a vague and airy feeling that there is a vast community chest on which the Catholics draw. That is not true. Every penny spent on education in the Catholic Church comes out of the pockets of the workers, by and large. There is no great fund. People have told me they are sick and tired of getting up whist drives to pay for their children's education. They pay through the rates, and are provided with a form of education to which they cannot, conscientiously, submit their children. They have to fill the collection plates on Sundays, and go to whist drives and other things in order to fork out more pence for the education that they desire. We say that is not fair. I tried to get the Minister to accept a new class of school, but he said that would upset the equilibrium of the Bill, and my suggestion fell by the wayside, as so many other useful and pertinent suggestions have done.
To come back to the cost, to my mind the Minister has proved our case, both by his proposals and by the absence of an indication of a ceiling of cost. He has not told us what the ultimate cost is to be. His own figures are based on a 35 per cent. increase over pre-war figures and he decided to afford us relief by giving us cheaper money, which some of ns can get cheaper still, so it will not help everyone. If he cannot accept the 75 per cent., will he consider that his calculations have been made on the basis of a 35 per cent. increase, while Lord Portal has

said that costs are already up 105 per cent.? With building charges up 105 per cent., that, in effect, puts us back to £600,000 a year, which the Minister has already said is too much for us to bear. Therefore, will he, between now and Report, consider some possible ceiling? It he will do that, we will sit still and try to be happy. We are determined not to put our guarantee behind something that we do not think we can undertake. We do not know what the future holds. We are not quite sure about the Government, and future Governments. There may be all sorts of funny people at that Box. We do not want, at this stage, to have to say, quite regardless of what the costs may be, that we are prepared to shoulder the burden envisaged in the Bill. We are grateful to the Minister for making it possible for us to get the money, and in many cases it will be cheaper than we can get, but, by and large, it only enables us to make sure that we can shoulder the burden. It does not get rid of the burden.
I appeal to hon. Members on this side to realise what it is we are after and that all this money has to be found from the working-man. There are no great dukes and landlords to cough it up for us. It is done by the workers. Our people are the poor people of the country. They are people with large families, who have the greatest burdens to bear. I ask that, as a party, we should reconsider our attitude, and ask the Minister to reconsider the, situation between now and Report and see if he cannot give us more help.

Mr. Gallacher: I have had a long and close association with Catholics, and I understand their hardships and poverty and the trouble that they have to maintain their church and schools. That is no reason why the Catholics in this House should become the stalking horses for the Church of England, which is not in any sense a poor organisation. There should be no increase of grant and no loans until 4,000 single-area schools become the property of the education authorities. There has been talk about the Scottish system, but that system could never be applied to this country where 4,000 single-area schools are in the hands of the Tory squires, as the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) says. The hon. Member says that of two evils we should choose the less. I say that of two evils, choose neither of them. If there is to be


any talk of finance we have a right to demand that this matter should be settled on the basis of all the single-area schools becoming controlled schools and being taken over by the local authorities. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), in an able, tempered speech, pointed out in effect that the Catholic community had contributed towards, and progressed with, the general advance of the community. Why should they reverse this course, why should Catholics suggest that for a temporary advantage to themselves they would give this terrific advantage to the Anglican Church at the expense of the people of the country? The Catholics will get much more out of co-operation with the community as a whole than they will get by playing into the hands of the Anglicans.

Mr. Tinker: I want to put a question to the President of the Board of Education. In his statement he mentioned certain figures. He mentioned £400,000 a year and 35 per cent. in regard to the question of increased costs. We are anxious to come to some understanding. Could he between now and bringing in his new Clause consider fixing a ceiling as to the increased costs to justify the figures he has mentioned? If he can give us some understanding on those lines I shall gladly not press the Amendment.

Mr. Butler: I gladly respond to the invitation of the hon. Member. My difficulty is this. I have been discussing costs and a ceiling both outside and inside the Committee for some time. The question of costs is a very difficult one and it involves the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others of my colleagues. The question of costs is, as it were, a moving platform. It moves together with the earnings of wage earners and others who provide the money. If costs go up, wages go up and you go along on a moving platform with them. To fix a definite ceiling on a moving platform is a difficult thing to do. I would not like to give any definite economic undertaking to the hon. Member. I will undertake simply to say that, in any contacts I have with him and his friends, I will continue to explain the situation as I see it. The Catholics as I have seen them are honourable people and do not wish to apply their signatures to something they cannot carry out. If I can explain to them that we are all in the

same boat—Government, wage earners, Roman Catholics and everybody else—on the question of costs, the hon. Member will see that no question of dishonour need arise with the Catholics in corning to an understanding on this point.

Mr. Tinker: In view of the assurance of the President of the Board of Education and the spirit behind it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 96.—(Power of the Minister to make grants in respect of aided schools and special agreement schools transferred to new sites or established in substitution for former schools.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 68, line 13, after "them," to insert:
or, as the case may be, by the managers or governors of the discontinued school or schools.
We are dealing in this Sub-section with schools which are being erected, in certain circumstances, in place of transferred or substituted schools. Therefore, in calculating the money that will have had to be found if these children had been taught in their old schools, it is necessary to take into account not merely the expenditure by the existing managers, but the expenditure that will have been incurred by the managers in the schools from which they have come. It is therefore, necessary, from the point of view of drafting, to put in the words of the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 68, line 15, at the end, to insert:
(2) Where the Minister has approved proposals submitted to him under sub-section (2) of section twelve of this Act that any school proposed to be established should be maintained by a local education authority as an auxiliary school and has directed that the proposed school shall be an aided school or a special agreement school, then, if the Minister is satisfied that the proposed school is required for the purpose of providing education for pupils for whose education provision would otherwise have been made in another school which is for the time being an aided school or a special agreement school, the Minister may pay to the managers or governors of the proposed school a grant not exceeding one half of that part of the amount expended in the construction thereof as is, in his opinion, attributable to the provision of education for those pupils at that school.
(3).


In dealing with substituted schools it might on many occasions be unwise to limit the new school to the actual number of pupils who came from the old school, because the multiplication of a number of schools is not always desirable. Let us assume, for instance, that there is a need in a certain area, after a regrouping of the population has taken place, for a school for 600 children, only 200 of whom come from a transferred or substituted school. It would be unwise and uneconomical to have one school for 200 and another for 400. It is desirable that there should be one school for 600, and it would obviously be wrong that grants should be paid by the Minister on the basis of a school for 600. He has to pay only on the basis of a school for 200, for the children of which, under Clause 15, he has made himself responsible. The Amendment enables him to pay in proportion to the number of children who ought to be brought into the arrangement. In the case I have just given, he would pay one-third of the cost of erecting the new school because one-third of the pupils have come from the transferred or substituted school.

Mr. Hughes: If only one-third of the pupils came from the old school and the grant was upon the basis of that, only one-sixth would be paid by the Minister.

Mr. Ede: My hon. and learned Friend is right in his vulgar fraction and I did not put the case quite properly. The Minister is responsible only for grants in respect of one-third of the children, and as he pays not exceeding 50 per cent., the maximum grant he can make in such circumstances is one equivalent to one-sixth of the cost of the school. Suppose a schools costs £60,000, one-third would be £20,000, and the grant on that would be not exceeding £10,000. It is clearly desirable that such an arrangement should be made because it will enable both building and staffing to be carried on on as economical a basis as possible, especially during a period when economy in both these services will be desirable.

Mr. Hughes: The Committee will agree with the general tenour of the Parliamentary Secretary's proposal, but there may be in the examples he gave an unfortunate implication, which he might perhaps correct. It ought not to go out

from the Committee that if an aided school, taking advantage of Clause 16, is transferred elsewhere, and when it is transferred finds that it has only a small proportion of the child population which needs to be catered for, it will get the right, provided it finds the money for the aided school, to be the school for a much larger number of the child population than it was in the place from which it came. The example used by my hon. Friend was a transfer of 200 children to a place where education was required for 600. Assuming 600 to be the economic size of school, it would be unfortunate if it went out that the transfer of 200 children to another place automatically gave the school, provided it could find the money, to have the aided school covering a much larger population.

Mr. Ede: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. Clearly there must be a case for the erection of an aided school of the required size. Transferring a nucleus does not give a prescriptive right to the transferred school to have a larger number than that which it took out. The kind of case I instanced might arise on big housing estates, and we would not desire the unnecessary multiplication of small or medium sized schools.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 68, line i6, leave out "Provided that."

In line 26, leave out "any such amount," and insert:
the amount of any grant to be made under subsection (1) of this section."—[Mr. Ede.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 97.—(Contributions between local education authorities.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 68, line 32, to leave out from "authority" to "education," in line 33, and to insert "for the primary or secondary."
The object of this Amendment is to omit young people's colleges from the scope of Sub-section (1), which relates to contributions by the authority of the area, to which a child belongs, to the authority which is educating the child. Where a young person goes to a young people's college in an area other than where he resides, the question of the contribution


to the educating authority will be dealt with by agreement under the new Subsection (5) put down later as a Government Amendment to this Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 68, line 34, after "authority" to insert:
then if a claim therefor is made within the prescribed period.
This is a Government Amendment put down to meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin). The Board, under this arrangement, will have to make a Regulation prescribing the period in which claims can be made for contributions. This part of the Clause deals with the re-enactment of what is known as the Institution Children's Act. Up to the present, a claim has had to be made within two years if a local authority educating a child is to be able to claim a contribution from the authority who is responsible for its education. We shall make regulations which will prescribe some period within which the claim must be made.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 68, line 34, at the end, insert "subject as hereinafter provided."—[Mr. Ede.]

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 68, line 38, at the end, to insert:
Provided that if in the case of any child or young person the Minister is satisfied that there was no sufficient reason why the education provided for him should not have been provided by the authority for the area to which he belongs the Minister may, on the application of that authority, direct that no contribution shall be recoverable in respect thereof under this Sub-section.
The Amendment deals with the case where a local education authority, having a perfectly good education service of its own, is called upon by another local education authority, to pay in respect of a child who has gone across the border for no good reason at all. In the past, this situation has led to some difficulty, but the Minister will be able to adjudicate, under the Amendment, where the local education authority supplying the education wishes to be able to recover from the area in which the guardian of the child resides. I have known unfortunate incidents of poaching, for instance, by a head teacher of a school on one side of a border, on preserves just over the boundary. It is clearly wrong that the authority whose

children have been poached in those circumstances should, if they are making suitable provision for education, have to pay for children who have gone into the area of the authority to which the children have been attracted.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 69, line 19, to leave out from "him" to the end of line 27.
This Amendment deletes proviso (b) to Clause 97 (4). The proviso has been very greatly objected to by such organisations as Dr. Barnado's Homes, whose work I am sure we all recognise. They are not the guardians of the children, and it is felt that it is not right that they should have to shoulder the responsibilities that would have been thrown on them by the Sub-section as placed in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 69, line 27, at the end, to add:
(5) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as preventing the payment by agreement between local education authorities of contributions in respect of education provided by one authority on behalf of another in cases where the authority by whom the education is provided is not entitled to recover contributions under this Section.
This is the Amendment to which I alluded earlier, and under which an arrangement will be made between various education authorities to defray the cost of educating those who are in young people's colleges, in areas other than those financially responsible for their education.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am not quite sure whether I ought to ask this question here, or on the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I apologise, Mr. Williams, if this is the wrong moment. I wish to know whether the Clause as now being amended, does or does not facilitate an arrangement between local education authorities for payment of post-school expenses?

The Deputy-Chairman: That question should be put on the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Pickthorn: I should like to be assured, if possible, about the position that will arise when a child of school-leaving age, going to some higher kind of learning, moves, or his parents move, out of one area to another. In the past, difficulties have arisen in such cases in both areas, one area disclaiming responsibility because the child no longer lives in that area, and the other disclaiming responsibility because the child was not educated with them. I should like to know that it will be easier than before for the Board to make sure that there are reasonable reciprocity treaties between local education authorities.

Sir Joseph Lamb: I must apologise, Mr. Williams, for not being here earlier when I understand my name was called, but I was in a committee upstairs. The only course I can pursue is to ask the Minister now, whether he will reply to a question. At present, a child can, by agreement between one local education authority which perhaps has not within its area provision for that child's education, and another local authority, receive education in the latter's area. The authority from which the child has gone, is responsible, but under the Clause as it stands, it would appear to me that the child, on its own volition, or perhaps at the desire of the parents, may go to another elementary education area, although there is a satisfactory education provision within the area in which it resides. The parents send the child into the other area, and expect the authorities there to be responsible. Is it possible for a child to go from an area where education is provided, to the area of another authority, and the authority where it resides to be responsible for paying for the education to the other authority, although they themselves are in a position to provide it?

Captain Cobb: I should like to put a very small point to the Parliamentary Secretary, who has been chairman of the Surrey Education Committee, which used to send a great many children to London for a particular kind of education, and especially to technical institutes. I would ask him whether, in order to avoid the amount of bargaining that has to go on between neighbouring authorities, who wish to arrive at a fair price for the education provided for what they call "out-

county" children, it would be possible to fix a scale applicable to each kind of service rendered. That would save a good deal of time and trouble as well as bad temper, between local authorities.

Mr. Ede: With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for the Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), the problem of following up, when a young person has taken a scholarship in one place and his parents have moved from one area to another, is, I believe, covered by the Bill. I am sorry I cannot give him the exact reference at the moment, but I undertake to find it and let him know. It is a situation that we are very desirous of meeting. Frequently that kind of thing has happened. A child has been granted a scholarship by one local authority and his parents have moved. Wesleyan ministers appear to be the usual victims. A lad or a girl may have been granted a university scholarship for at least three years, yet it may be that the receiving authority is not prepared to carry on the scholarship. Clearly, that is a condition of affairs that we do not wish to see continued. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), he will find that the Amendment I moved on behalf of the Minister, containing a new proviso to Sub-section (1), deals with the point. If there was no necessity for a child to go into the area which educates him, my right hon. Friend can rule that the authority within which the child resides need not pay the authority which has received the child.

Sir J. Lamb: I am much obliged.

Mr. Ede: The point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Captain Cobb) is covered, so far as agreement is concerned, by the new Sub-section (5) which I moved. I do not think it is possible, in view of the salary scales and general costs that prevail in these technological institutions, to have any scale fixed that would be generally applicable throughout the country.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 99.—(Power to facilitate commencement of Part 11.)

Mr. McEntee: I beg to move, in page 70, line II, after "may," to insert:
in respect of individual educational areas.
Perhaps the Minister may be willing to accept this Amendment. Part V of the Bill deals with facilitating the putting into effect of Part II of the Bill. It would appear that this Clause would allow the Minister only to make an order within the whole of the county. It appears that the Clause might operate in a way which would prevent one area within a county from having the advantage of an order. We ask therefore that the words should be inserted, or that the Minister should give us an assurance that the Clause will not affect an area within the county in the way I have described.

Mr. Ede: The Amendment goes far beyond the internal arrangements of a county. Throughout the Bill, the proposals have been so framed as to be brought into operation simultaneously throughout the country. Those of us whose memories go back to 1919–20 will recollect the great difficulties that the London County Council had when they attempted to operate the day continuation schools, while the areas around London did not do so. The consequence was that a large number of employers in London said that they would sooner take a child from the outer regions who was not liable to attend a day continuation school than a child living inside the county of London.
That was one of the contributory causes of the breakdown of the Fisher Act. Throughout these proposals, if we attempt to operate them on the basis of isolated areas being allowed to bring in the proposals ahead of somebody else, especially their neighbours, I am afraid we shall be faced, over a wide range of educational endeavour, with the same kind of opposition, leading to the same kind of ill-feeling, and the ultimate breakdown of the arrangements. We desire under this Bill that the school-leaving age shall be raised to 15 on one day throughout the country, young people's colleges shall be established on one day throughout the whole country, and the school-leaving age raised to 16 on one day throughout the whole country, and thus that these problems affecting the borders of areas which have

taken a progressive view shall not arise I think my hon. Friend will realise, that from experience, we have learned that it would be very dangerous indeed to operate on the lines suggested by his Amendment.

Sir J. Nall: What the Parliamentary Secretary says is all very well in relation to the school-leaving age, but is it quite sound to say that day continuation schools or young people's colleges cannot be operated until every authority is ready to do so? What is going to happen in the Borough of Rugby, which is the only one where that provision of the Fisher Act obtains?

Sir P. Harris: I wish to endorse from my own experience what has been said by the Parliamentary Secretary. I went through the sad experience of the experiment made by London, in all good faith, to introduce continuation schools. Immediately, they became very unpopular amongst the parents, while children outside came pouring into London to take jobs which would otherwise have gone to London children. The first question an employer asked an applicant for a job who was between the ages of 14 and 16, was, "Are you in London? Are you required to go to a continuation school? If so we will not employ you. We will take a child from Hendon, Willesden or one of the neighbouring counties." Our experience was that it was fatal to run continuation schools under those conditions. I am convinced that if we are to have young people's colleges we will have to wait until the whole country is prepared to work the scheme. If not, we will have the same misfortunes, the same irritations, the same annoyances that happened in the last experiment. I therefore support the very wise remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary, which I am sure will be endorsed by anybody who had experience of London education in those years.

Mr. Ede: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) for the remarks he has made. I was engaged in one place just across the border, and I saw the same problem from the other point of view. I am quite sure that anyone who went through that experience would not desire to see it repeated. It would lead us to disaster. So far as the very interesting experiment at Rugby is concerned, I


think it is one of the proofs that the old system broke down, that only one small town has been able to operate a scheme. We shall do what we can to help the Rugby experiment to remain alive in the interim period, but it is quite wrong to base any general proposals on the very isolated instance of Rugby. After all, Rugby has some particular advantages, especially with regard to some of the big industries that have grown up there in the last 20 or 30 years. Its experiences have not been shared by any other part of the country. We will endeavour to keep that experiment alive.

Sir J. Nall: My point was whether the whole country is to wait until every authority is ready. Rugby is a case in point, where the authorities were able to agree to get this scheme going. Under this Bill there may be similar cases all over the country. Are they all to be held up until every authority is ready?

Mr. Ede: I hope there will be a wide measure of experimentation on a voluntary basis. The problem arises when an attempt is made to apply compulsion, and thus upset arrangements between employer and employed.

Mr. McEntee: In view of the statement made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 7o, line 14, at the end, to insert:
and Section forty-one of this Act shall have effect as if for the reference therein to date of the commencement of the said Part II there were substituted a reference to the date of the expiry of the order.
This is consequent upon the Amendment which my right hon. Friend introduced into the Clause dealing with the establishment of young people's colleges. It has been decided on the appropriate Clause that an order establishing them is to be made not later than three years after the day on which the school-leaving age is raised to 15. This Amendment is necessary to link up that Clause with the Clause now under discussion.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 101.—(Regulations to be laid before Parliament.)

Sir Arnold Gridley: I beg to move, in page 7o, line 33, to leave out from "and" to "period," in line 34, and to insert:
any such regulation shall cease to have effect on the expiration of a.
I take it, Mr. Williams, that you will agree that the Amendment further down on the Order Paper:
in page 70, line 35, to leave out from "it," to without," in line 37, and insert "unless at some time before the expiration of that period they have been approved with or without amendment, by resolution of both Houses of Parliament,
should be taken with this Amendment. The purpose of these two Amendments is very simple. It is to secure that the Minister shall obtain affirmative Resolutions as when, for example, Orders for establishing a joint education authority are contemplated under paragraph r, Part I, of the First Schedule. I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more in support of the Amendment. The principle has been discussed on many previous occasions, and I know the Minister himself wishes to finish the Committee stage of this Bill.

Mr. Pickthorn: There has been debate on earlier occasions about whether this is a matter of principle to be settled once and for all or whether it ought to be considered on each particular Bill. I will take great care not to get out of Order in discussing it, but I think it appropriate to say, to begin with, that in my view that question is really an unfair one: it is really the business of private Members to challenge the authorisation to legislate indirectly every time it is put up, and always to put the onus of proof on the Government, especially of proof that the negative check is sufficient. I think that in the Bill before us, although that onus may be more easily discharged than in some other Bills we have had, it is perhaps rather more obvious than it has been on some previous occasions for this reason: the normal Ministerial defence of delegated legislation is to say, "On this matter which concerns my Bill the only really possible way, in view of the complications of all the interests, is that the House should lay down general principles and I should be left, by sub-legislation, to apply particular rules to special cases." But, under this Bill, the Ministerial outlook has been almost the converse of that.
We have been told on three or four occasions, particularly on the earlier Clauses, that really they were matters of principle, that when you came to education, which is so evanescent and so immaterial, these were matters of principle which you could not get into draftsman's language, and that we must trust to Ministerial probity and general Parliamentary control, and that the matter must be left to the administrative machine which the Bill provides. That is the argument which my right hon. Friend has presented to the Committee on several occasions. Therefore, we are the more bound to ask him now to make out a case why he should have this power, with merely the negative check, and not, as we would prefer, the positive check. And, secondly, I do not know what hon. Members would dare to stand an examination to-day the subject of which would be: "What, when this Bill becomes an Act, can the Minister do by regulation?" This is a long Bill, the discussions have been long, and in many ways—without disrespect to the Committee—scrappy and interrupted. We have all had other prepossessions, much more urgent and, in a way, much more important; and I venture to say that the Committee is not very clear in its corporate mind at the present time what the Minister can do under Clause 101, and what he cannot. It would be proper for him to remind us what he can do under this Clause before he asks us to allow him to have the power with a merely negative check.

Sir J. Mellor: I support this Amendment because I think that the powers given to the Minister to legislate by regulation and by order under this Bill are greater than the powers given under any other Bill that I can remember.

Mr. Butler: This issue is one which the Government have examined very carefully, in the light of the Amendment on the Order Paper. I have had an opportunity of discussing it with various hon. Members in the Committee. The position is that, under the existing education law, Section 118 (5) of the Act of 1921 provided simply that any regulations made by the Board for payment of grants should be laid before Parliament when they are made. We fully realised the anxiety of hon. Members, and, therefore, we drafted our Bill in a rather more definite way. Clause sot goes further

than the 1921 Act by requiring that all regulations made under the Act shall be laid before Parliament for the specified period, with the further provision that Parliament may resolve that the regulations may be annulled. I should say that that was quite sufficient power for the House over the vast range of the regulations made by the Board. To ask for an affirmative Resolution for every one of our regulations would not only, I think, render the work of Parliament too heavy to be carried out, but would also cause the work of the Board to become extremely clogged.
I am quite prepared to explain, for the benefit of hon. Members supporting the Amendment and that of other hon. Members, the type of regulation which the Minister is empowered to make. We do not want to get out of any unpleasant duty but wherever the word "prescribed" occurs, it would mean that this procedure would have to be followed. In Clause 9, Sub-section (7), for example, there is the question of the prescribed standards for the premises of maintained schools. Again, under Clause 35, there is the question of the form of school attendance order. There is, under Clause 65, the conduct of medical examinations, medical inspections, and matters pertaining thereto. I could give a good many examples of cases where the word "prescribed" is used. I am prepared to discuss the question with hon. Members interested in these Amendments, in order that before we reach the next stage we may have an understanding on the type of regulations which should require an affirmative Resolution.
In order to show that we have taken an interest in this matter, I would point out that there is one type of order in respect of which I think it would be legitimate to require a positive Resolution. That is the order for the establishment of a joint education board, made under Part I of the First Schedule. That would very much affect the local government of an area, and would be an example of a new authority being set up under the Bill. In the case of such an order, we think that we might usefully require a positive Resolution of the House. If hon. Members cared to examine the lists of the prescribed conditions which I can give them, and to consider whether there were any others of similar calibre, I would be ready to discuss the matter; but I must not be


taken as adopting too easy a line on this. An affirmative Resolution is very difficult to fit in with Parliamentary business, especially as I want to get this Measure implemented, and the time between the passing of the Act and the making of the regulations is not going to be very long. It would then be possible for affirmative Resolutions to be made where necessary, while the remainder could be left on the Table of the House, so that any wide-awake Member would be able to move to annul them. We have considerably improved on the procedure of the existing Act. To suggest that all the regulations should be subject to an affirmative Resolution would be going too far; but I am ready, if the Amendment is not pressed, to discuss the matter with the hon. Member and with anybody else who is interested before the next stage.

Sir P. Harris: I would very much like to support the sensible offer of the right hon. Gentleman. There is obviously a very clear line between regulations dealing with mere administration and regulations giving additional powers to the Board. The example given by the right hon. Gentleman is a very important one, dealing with the question of joint authorities. That may seriously affect the independence or the rights of local authorities.

Mr. Pickthorn: If there is a very clear line between these two kinds of regulations, why does not the right hon. Gentleman suggest that one set be made by the Bill the subject of affirmative Resolution, and the other left to be the subject of the negative procedure?

Sir P. Harris: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to do that. That is why I welcome his attitude, which is a great improvement on the attitude of most Ministers. I think that when we get a Minister prepared to be so reasonable, we ought to back him. I think that when this conference is held —and I should like to be included in the conference—we should have an opportunity to discuss the difference between the two kinds of regulations.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: While I welcome what the Minister has said in regard to the two categories of regulations, I think we should be careful to distinguish which kind of regulation

falls within each category. That should be clearly defined in the Bill. I was sorry to hear the Minister saying that he would give an example of regulations that would not require an affirmative Resolution of the House. The regulations provide the standard of school to which schools have to conform. I think that is a most important matter, because the standard, as fixed, will probably determine whether a school will come within the aided category or have to become a controlled school. I ask the Minister to consider whether that type of regulation should not also be subject to an affirmative Resolution.

Mr. Price: I would like to say from these benches, that I think that the Minister has met those who moved this Amendment in a very reasonable spirit. There is no doubt that there is a great danger that the House might, in the conduct of legislation which comes before us, find it very difficult, if not impossible, to carry out its duty in watching over the Regulations which Ministers are empowered to draw up. On the other hand, if we tie Ministers down to affirmative Resolutions, it makes the function of the Executive impossible. Therefore, I think there must be a compromise on this matter. In any matter which is clearly of public importance there should be an affirmative Resolution. Concerning other regulations, there may be other methods and other ways of dealing with them.

Sir A. Gridley: I think the Minister has made a very fair and proper suggestion, like so many others in the course of these Debates. As the Minister has been good enough to give those of us who put down this Amendment an undertaking that there will be a conference to go into this question further, between now and the Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 103.— (Interpretation.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 71, line 29, at the end, to insert:
and, unless the context otherwise requires, references in this Act to 'managers' or 'governors' shall, in relation to any func-


tion thereby conferred or imposed exclusively on foundation managers or foundation governors be construed as references to such managers or governors.
This will enable foundation managers or governors where they, in respect of their limited functions, have a dispute with the local education authority, to take that dispute to the Minister if they are dissatisfied with the answer they get from the local education authority. It is obviously clear that, as these people have some substantial responsibilities to shoulder, which may on occasion result in a dispute with the local education authority, they should be able to have the same tribunal to deal with their disputes as other bodies of managers and governors.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 72, line 10, at the end, to insert:
and in relation to the area of any joint educational board constituted under Part I of the First Schedule to this Act a local government elector for the area of any council by whom members are appointed to the Board shad be deemed to he a local government elector for the area of the authority.
Where a joint board is established, it is clear that there should be a right for every local government elector to exercise, in respect of that board, the same rights with regard to the inspection of minutes that he would have had had the joint education board not been set up and he had remained under the county council or the county borough council.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 73, line 35, after "means," to insert:
an institution for providing primary or secondary education or both primary and secondary education being.
This revised definition is due to some alterations we made on the earlier Clauses of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 74, line 21,after "of," to insert "maintaining."
If hon. Members will allow me to read the paragraph as it will be when amended I think they will see the reason.
(a) A school or young people's college shall be deemed to be maintained by a local education authority if the authority are responsible for all the expenses of maintaining the school or college.…

Quite clearly, "maintaining" is the proper word to insert there.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 74, line 35, at the end, to insert:
(3) For the purposes of this Act expenses in discharging any liability incurred by any person other than a local education authority in connection with the establishment of au auxiliary school in respect of rent mortgage interest or the repayment of any loan shall not be deemed to be expenses of maintaining the school.
Quite clearly, one has to distinguish, where a school becomes liable for support by the local education authority, whether it was established out of a sum of money that was paid down when the establishment took place, or whether it was established out of a loan which is continuing, and it would clearly be wrong in the second case that the capital charges on the establishment of the school should be borne by the local education authority, and that no part of the capital charge should be borne in the first case. This Amendment makes it quite clear that those sums incurred in establishing the school shall not fall upon the local education authority.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 75, line 4, at the end, to insert:
(5) Any person who before the commencement of Part II of this Act had attained an age at which his parent had ceased to be under any obligation imposed under section forty-six of the Education Act, 1921, shall be deemed to be over compulsory school age, and any person who after the said date ceases to be of compulsory school age shall not, in the event of any subsequent change in the upper limit of the compulsory school age, again become a person of compulsory school age.
This is the usual Amendment to include in an Education Bill where the school-leaving age is raised. It is a purely transitory provision, and it means that a child who has left school before the age is raised and who might be brought back to school is exempt. It does not apply to more than one or two years, and in the case of young people's colleges it does not apply to more than three years.

Mr. Alexander Walkden: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether this prohibits youngsters above the present maximum age from entering voluntarily into further education at a later date when the new arrangements are put into operation?

Mr. Ede: It does not prevent them doing it voluntarily, but it avoids compulsion, and there are certain disciplinary problems involved which make it highly undesirable that compulsion should be applied in this strictly limited way.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir. J. Lamb: I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question. Will it be necessary in all cases that a committee should be set up under the Seventh Schedule, or, where the Minister agrees with the syllabus already in existence and accepted by all parties, can that syllabus be continued without the setting up of a committee?

Mr. Ede: This raises a somewhat difficult and intricate point. Most of the agreed syllabuses now in use have, in the main, themselves provided for the old elementary school leaving age of 14. This Bill requires instruction to be given not merely in primary, but in secondary schools, and that includes pupils up to 18 or 19 years of age. Clearly, most of the existing agreed syllabuses will need substantial revision if they are to be made suitable for that wider age range. Therefore, it will be necessary for them to receive some consideration, but I would not have thought that it would be outside the terms of the Bill if a local education authority called its committee together, and they decided that, rather than go through the processes of constructing their own syllabus, they were prepared to accept one of the existing syllabuses which are known to have some standing, such as the Cambridge syllabus. I think myself that would be a sufficient discharge of their efforts, but I must call attention to the fact that none of the syllabuses, as far as I know—and I have examined all of them—has been designed for dealing with the school age of the secondary school.

Sir J. Lamb: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his explanation, and I should have assumed that a syllabus accepted by the Minister would conform to the requirements.

Colonel Sir John Shute: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will be good enough to

elucidate the meaning of the term "nature" in the Clause, where it says "shall give particulars of the nature of the education"? Some of my friends have written to me to say that the meaning of those words is not clear, and the object of an Amendment which I and my hon. Friends had on the Paper was to try to make it clear that the term "nature" should be construed as meaning "all or any of the following types of education, namely, grammar, modern and technical."

Mr. Ede: I do not dissent from the view which the hon. and gallant Member expressed as to the meaning of the term "nature," but I would point out that it does not by any means follow that schools will be exclusively of one of the types he has mentioned. In fact, I hope that, with the steady development of the education service, more and more various types of education will be given inside one establishment.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 105.—(Saving as to persons of unsound mind, inmates of pen al establishments, etc.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Rhys Davies: I notice that in this Clause the Mental Deficiency Act is mentioned, and I would like to ask the representative of the Board of Education whether this Bill will provide a better system of dealing with these little ones called mental deficients. I only want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether this Clause, and the earlier Clauses dealing with the problem, will in fact improve on the present system of dealing with this type of child.

Mr. Ede: This Clause only exempts people under the Mentally Deficient and similar Acts from penalties that might fall on them if they do not discharge their duties as parents or in other ways under the Act. We have had a very long discussion on Clauses 31 and 32 when dealing with special schools for children who are the subject of special difficulties, including mentally deficient children, and I am sure that the Committee would not


like me to repeat now the convincing speeches I made on those Clauses.

Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 106.—(Application to London.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 76, line 7, to leave out "and."
This is the first of a series of Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), and in his absence, I beg to accept all the Amendments he has put down on this Clause, which bring the local government provisions of London into line with the provisions under the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 76, line 7, after "eighty-three," insert "and one hundred and three."

In line 13, leave out the third "and."

In line 14, after "sixty-five," insert "and three hundred and five."

In line 16, leave out the third "and."

In line 17, after "eight," insert "and two hundred and six."—[Mr. Ede.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 107 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 108.—(Commencement.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Can the Minister give us any information on when Part III should come into force?

Mr. Ede: No one is more anxious that Part III should come into operation as soon as possible than I am. That particular part of the Bill represents the achievement of a very considerable purpose in which I have had some personal interest. We must depend upon getting a sufficiency of inspectors. As soon as we have that, we intend to bring that part of the Bill into operation, but may I say that the mere appearance of the White Paper, and the mention of this subject in that White Paper, led to a considerable number of schools asking for inspection, so that the mere shadow of legislation has had a particularly good effect in this case.

Sir P. Harris: I must say that the schools which are anxious for inspection are pro-

bably the schools that are thoroughly satisfactory. What we want is that the unsatisfactory schools which exist up and down the country do not escape the eagle eye of the Board of Education—

Mr. Cove: The Board of Education has not an eagle eye.

Sir P. Harris: But it ought to go out from the House that it has the nation behind it and these public schools should have full public control and inspection.

Mr. Ede: I heartily agree, and one of the triumphs of this Bill is that we have managed to get this part through, although Mr. Fisher was defeated in trying to do a similar thing 25 years ago.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 109 to 111 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of Minister to make loans to aided schools and special agreement schools in respect of initial expenditure.)

(1) If upon the application of the managers or governors of any aided school or special agreement school the Minister is satisfied after consultation with persons representing them that their share of any initial expenses required in connection with the school premises will involve capital expenditure which, in his opinion having regard to all the circumstances of the case, ought properly to be met by borrowing, he may make to the managers or governors of the school for the purpose of helping them to meet that expenditure, a loan of such amount at such rate of interest, and otherwise on such terms and conditions as may be specified in an agreement made between him and them with the consent of the Treasury.

(2) For the purposes of this Section, the expression "initial expenses" means in relation to any school premises:

(a) expenses to be incurred in defraying the cost of any alterations required by the development plan approved by the Minister for the area;
(b) expenses to be incurred in pursuance of any special agreement;
(c) expenses to be incurred in the construction of any school which, by virtue of an order made under Section fifteen of this Act, is deemed not to be a newly established school or is deemed to be in substitution for any discontinued school or schools;
and the managers' or governors' share of any such initial expenses shall be taken to be so much thereof as remains to be borne by them after taking into account the amount of any maintenance contribution, grant under a special agreement, or grant under Sub-section


(1) of Section ninety-six of this Act, as may be paid or payable in respect of those expenses.—[Mr. Butler.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I have made somewhat extensive reference to this Clause earlier to-day and therefore I will not go over the ground again in detail. It may be for the convenience of the Committee, however, if I simply draw certain points to their attention. It will be noticed that the Minister is empowered to make loans to aided schools and special agreement schools in respect of initial expenditure, and the initial expenses are defined in the second part of the new Clause, which refers to those expenses as:
(a) expenses to be incurred in defraying the cost of any alterations required by the development plan approved by the Minister for the area:
That takes up what I said earlier, namely, that the object of this is to provide the capital advances necessary for voluntary school managers to take on the peculiar liabilities they have to undertake under the Bill and that must be tied up with the original development plan.
(b) expenses to be incurred in pursuance of any special agreement.
That simply refers to the comparatively few Anglican special agreement schools, and the comparatively large number of Roman Catholic special agreement schools, amounting to some 300, proposals for which were made before the present legislation was introduced. Sub-section (c) refers to Section 15 of the Bill which deals with the bona fide transfer of schools to which I also referred in my initial speech. It will be noticed that the loan can be taken out in respect of the amount over and above any maintenance contribution. That is the grant about which we had so much discussion earlier in the day. The object of the loan, therefore, is, as I said, to place the denominations and voluntary managers in the same situation as local authorities found themselves in when borrowing to carry out public work and therefore it is based on an equitable foundation.
The questions which we discussed earlier are really summed up in the phrase used in the first part of the Clause:
on such terms and conditions as may be specified.

The method of working the loan will be to negotiate it with the governors or managers, but it will be noticed in the early part of the Clause that the words
after consultation with persons representing them
have been included. The importance of those words is that in a loan of this character the Committee will wish to be satisfied that the applications and, indeed, the bargain is not a frivolous one, and therefore conditions will have to be laid down as the Clause specifies. We also trust that in the case of the denominations, we may bring in the diocesan author rifles, particularly the Diocesan Finance Committee. That will be some backing for the general view of the managers because, if this loan were to be negotiated simply with the managers, there would be no screening of the loan by the diocesan organisation. I have ascertained that both in the case of Roman Catholics and Anglicans they would be ready, so to speak, to rationalise their finances to that extent so that the loan could then be made with the additional security that the diocese is interesting itself in the transaction. A further proposal which the Government have in mind is that these loans shall not be taken out for any sum below £500 in order, to some extent, to limit the scope of the loans.
The last matter to which I promised to make reference earlier to-day was the question of the Minister's discretion. Here I shall want the aid of the Committee. This Clause is drafted in terms which we think cover what is necessary, but I am quite prepared to consider any additions or further definitions in it so as to make quite clear that the Minister shall carry out the spirit of my previous speech, namely, that these loans shall not he used in the case of Anglican schools to perpetuate the grievance of the single-school area. It really would not be in the interests of the Bill if we were to tip over to the aided list certain schools which would otherwise be on the controlled list. If that were done the object of the Bill would be lost.
I confess it is difficult to find machinery which is useful and helpful. What I have in mind is a discussion with hon. Members, and with anybody else who is interested in this matter outside, to find machinery suitable to the Free Churches and the Anglicans which will help us to avoid this difficulty. I am pleased to


have this discretion laid upon me. We initiated some discussions on the single-school area problem which in any case were to be continued, and I am perfectly ready to bring into these discussions the issue which arises here, that is, to say whether the Minister, in the exercise of his discretion, should be so empowered as to give effect to the passage I read from the Church Assembly report, that these loans should not be used for purposes inimical to the general objects of the Bill.
Those are the explanations I think necessary for me to make. If the Committee passes the Clause in its present form it will still be possible for us to look at it before the next stage in company with hon. Members, because it is a difficult and important course upon which we are embarking. I wish it to be businesslike, and therefore I wish to enlist the aid of the Committee to make it so, but I think I can confidently say that in its present form it does bear the outline of the policies the Government desire.

Colonel A. Evans: In his previous speech my right hon. Friend took care to say that no particular sum was mentioned in his speech, or in the Clause as drafted on the Paper, but he gave the assurance that the money would be lent to Catholic authorities on approximately the same basis as that loaned to the local authorities and the money should be provided from the Public Loans Fund. I only rise to ask my right hon. Friend if, in the future, it is found possible to reduce the rate of interest at which money is loaned to the local authorities, the Catholic community would benefit in the same degree as the local authorities.

Mr. Cove: I gather from the Minister's statement that this satisfies my Roman Catholic friends.

Colonel Evans: It is difficult to let a statement of that kind pass. I do not wish to enter into a long argument upon it, but we are, quite honestly, placing great faith in the statement of the Minister that in negotiations with the Treasury he will endeavour to persuade his friends, particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to our point of view on the question of taking 35 per cent. as the likely rise in building costs. The whole of our case is based on the assumption that the cost will not exceed that figure.

Mr. Cove: I am still of the opinion that this satisfies my Roman Catholic friends. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Is there a categorical "Yes" or "No"?

The Chairman: Will hon. Members please address the Chair?

Mr. Loftus: It satisfies us if it is not more than 35 per cent.

Mr. Cove: Well, I gather that it satisfies my Roman Catholic friends in the main, but in fairness to the Minister it ought to be stated unequivocally whether or not it does satisfy them. My impression is that it does. But I want to know whether it satisfies my Church of England friends and my Nonconformist friends. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The answer from my hon. Friends on this side who represent the Nonconformists is that it does not, and I agree with them. I must tell the Minister, frankly, that it makes me very uneasy about the whole situation in the single-school areas. Is this meant to preserve, or not, the Church schools in the single-school areas?

Mr. Butler: I made two speeches and quoted the view of a prominent Anglican leader indicating that it was not the desire either of the Government or, it appears, of Anglicans themselves, that this loan procedure should be abused. I further offered to try to discuss the matter with hon. Members before the next stage of the Bill in order to see that the terms are satisfactory. My desire is dear, and whether we shall be able to carry it out or not depends on how clever I am and how clever the Committee are.

Mr. Cove: The general opinion of Members—[An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] Well, of those to whom I have spoken, is that the Minister has been very clever to-day.

Mr. Muff (Kingston-upon-Hull, East): We are paying him to be clever.

Mr. Cove: The reality lies in this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman may say this, that or the other, but another Minister will eventually succeed him and what will operate will be what we put on the Statute Book. I do not impugn the Minister's good intents; as a matter of fact, he has been very adroit during the whole of the Committee stage and I give full marks to him; but here is the Clause which pro-


vides loans for Church schools, special agreement schools and other aided schools. Why not give a full-blooded 100 per cent.? In effect, this is 100 per cent. grant, although the Minister does not provide it direct, because he might meet a lot more opposition if he did. This is a more adroit Parliamentary way of doing it. What schools is it meant to preserve? Only the Roman Catholic schools? Is that it? This is meant to preserve more than the Roman Catholic schools.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Cove: I will tell the hon. and gallant Member.

Sir A. Southby: Then do not take so long about it.

Mr. Cove: It is meant to preserve more than the Roman Catholic schools [HON. MEMBERS: "Say it again."] I am waiting for the Church of England response. It is meant to preserve the Church of England schools throughout the villages of this country.

Sir A. Southby: Hear, hear.

Mr. Cove: Now I think I have got it. It is meant to preserve the Church of England schools throughout the villages of this country.

Mr. Leach: The hon. Member has said it again.

Mr. Cove: I repeat it. It is meant to preserve the Church of England schools throughout the villages of this country.

Mr. Leach: How many times is that?

Mr. Cove: I say it with much more sincerity than the hon. Member has shown in supporting his colleagues to-day. The fact is that this is a loan to maintain the dual system. We may as well face it. There are no conditions attaching to this loan. I am not against the principle of schools which are directly related to religious teaching, but I am directly opposed to schools which are contrary to the religious and political feelings throughout these villages. My Nonconformist friends should rise and say, "This loan is a first-class offence to the Nonconformist conscience." It is a free loan.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Does not the Clause say:

…a loan of such amount at such rate of interest and otherwise on such terms and conditions as may be specified.…

Mr. Cove: Yes, I know, but all that is subject to political pressure and so on. It is a loan by the State to religious teaching and maintenance of the dual system, and it is more fundamental from the Nonconformist point of view than a straight percentage grant. I regard this Clause as a very dangerous Clause, a Clause which more even than a straight grant of 75 per cent. will keep the dual system intact in this country. I am not opposing the dual system on the ground of religious feeling, but I am definitely opposed to it because throughout the villages of England it runs contrary to religious, political and social feeling.

Mr. Colegate: I listened with some surprise to the speech which we have just heard, and I rather wonder if the hon. Member is going to press the matter to a Division. When we hear the President of the Board of Education accused of adroit manoeuvres, what are we to think of the manoeuvres which we have just heard suggested? These loans are for the improvement of schools to bring them up to the new standard, and what is the suggestion? The suggestion is that no facilities should be given for improving these schools, that the schools should be allowed to go on getting worse and worse, so that at last they can be forced into the one system. That is the clear meaning of the opposition to the Clause. Everybody interested in these denominational schools is anxious that they should come right up to the very best standards which we hope are going to be brought about by this Bill. That can only be done by adequate finance, and we have been discussing whether that finance should be provided by a 75 per cent. grant or by loan.
Most of us have come to the conclusion that there is no chance of bringing these schools up to the prescribed standard unless cheap finance is provided. To say that you are not going to let that finance be provided, but that you are going to enforce this standard, is simply a trick for forcing these schools away from the denominations which wish to maintain them. Therefore, I think the accusation of adroitness on the part of the hon. Member comes very badly in the present circumstances. I shall be greatly interested to see whether he does or does not


press for a Division. I am sure that everybody interested in the real thing, that is the provision of good schools, will welcome this Clause and will think that it reflects a reasonably fair and generous attitude on the part of the President of the Board of Education.

Mr. Hughés: The reference by the hon. Member to providing good schools is completely irrelevant to the purpose of this Clause. He is not concerned with providing good schools for the country but with providing schools for the Anglican and Catholic denominations. Therefore, it is right and proper that we should see what the effect of this Clause is going to be. I said at an earlier stage that if my Roman Catholic friends desire a denominational school, a Catholic school for Catholic children, I have every desire to asist them. If their desire is to provide a strictly denominational school by Catholics for Catholics, that is perfectly proper. But let us turn to the Anglican position. I support the Anglican position that they want Anglican schools for Anglican children, but I am not in favour of a Clause to give them money to provide those schools or to lend them money at much easier rates than they could otherwise get.
When we come to Anglican schools, we are concerned with a vastly bigger range of schools than those which are purely Anglican. I take my stand on the words of the Minister when discussing the Amendment, on which we spent some time earlier in this Sitting. He gave an assurance that regard would be had, in exercising his discretion under this Clause, to the matter of the single-school area. In moving this new Clause, he went further and said he would welcome any suggestions that would make the Clause work in the direction of, as I put it, helping Anglican schools which are Anglican schools, but not preserving Anglican schools in single-school areas. How is that point to be satisfied? According to the framework of this Bill, the Minister will be presented with plans from different parts of the country. They will be separate plans for separate areas, but they will all find their way to his table, and when they come to the table of the Minister he can collate them and look at the whole of the plans for the whole country. He will see the schools which the Roman Catholics want extended, and the new

ones they want to be built, and the same position will arise with regard to the Church of England schools. Then he will have regard to the requests made from the Roman Catholics and the Church of England for financial assistance under the terms of the new Clause.
I suggest to the Minister that as a first step he should assess the claims denominationally. He should ask what is the total amount which the Roman Catholics want by way of loan. Then he should ask what is the total claim for loans by the Church of England. As far as the Roman Catholic claims are concerned, he will have no great difficulty in sorting them out. They will not have to be sorted into Catholic and partly Catholic schools. But with regard to the Church of England, the claims can be divided into those for purely Anglican schools and those in respect of schools in single-school areas. Therefore, I suggest he should divide the claims of the Church of England for assistance into two categories, those from the non-single-school areas, and those from the single-school areas. Then, when he has decided how far he is prepared to give assistance to the Church of England, he should say that it must all be exhausted on the non-single-school areas before he recommends a single penny to be spent in the single-school areas.
That is the first suggestion I have to make to enable him to work it out. The second is this. If there is a request for a loan to enable an Anglican school to become an aided school in a single-school area, I think the Minister ought to reinforce himself before he exercises his discretion by an inquiry into the area of the school. My first suggestion cannot he embodied, in terms, within the Bill, but I think the second can. I do not want to limit myself, or to suggest that the Minister should be limited, as to the inquiry and the manner in which it should be conducted, but there ought to be some method of ascertaining what is the exact position of the school in the area which it seeks to serve.
There are two further matters on which I would ask the Committee to press for an assurance. These are loans which will be made upon terms which the Minister and the Treasury together will agree. One of the things which I suggest ought to be embodied is that there shall be a term upon the loan. It ought not to be


within the discretion of a Minister and Treasury combination to grant a loan redeemable upon indefinite terms. There ought to be express terms in the Bill. It should be something corresponding to the projected life of the school. Again, as the Clause stands, there is no default provision. The default provision in Clause 92 is an elaborate and cumbersome thing which involves the Minister going to the High Court—not to the county court on a judgment summons—to get a mandamus to compel the managers to carry out their duties. What is the duty which they have to carry out under this Clause? It is to pay interest and sinking fund. What is the good of the Minister wasting time and spending money upon lawyers and going through the elaborate procedure of a mandamus to direct the managers to do something which ex-hypothesi have been unable to do before he started on his legal journey? That is really a grave deficiency in the Clause. I am ready to assist Roman Catholics and Anglicans, and Parliament is making very generous provision for them, hut there ought to be a default provision to say that, if they do not carry out the provisions of the Bill, the school must become either a controlled or a council school. With those reservations I welcome the Clause.

Mr. Ede: My right hon. Friend desires me to thank the hon. and learned Member for the speech he has just made. It is an answer to his offer made in the spirit in which it was tendered. During the negotiations which led to the Clause appearing on the Paper, my right hon. Friend commissioned me to see the leaders of the Free Churches. I am not a Free Churchman. I am a Nonconformist and there is a substantial difference between the two. As a Nonconformist I reject the authoritarian conception of religion. We have two Churches here with whom we are engaged, who in different degrees are authoritarian [Interruption.] The more anarchical the more authoritarian, but I do not want to get involved in the unfortunate schisms which may be held to exist there. Therefore, if I challenge the right of this Committee to pass an Act of Uniformity contrary to my religious belief, I must be very careful that I do not attempt to impose my views uniformly on other people. That is the philosophy on

which I have based my attitude to the religious Clauses of the Bill, and I speak as one who was a Nonconformist child in a single-school area [Interruption.] Think where I should be if I had had a board school in my parish.
We were very gratified when we approached the Free Church leaders on this issue to find that they desired that the arrangement made with the two Churches—because after all that is really what this is—should in fact be implemented. There could be nothing worse for the future of education than that my right hon. Friend should hold out fair hopes to denominational schools, and then that they should find themselves administered out of existence. That is not our intention. Let us face up to this, that if we said to the local education authorities, "There shall be no future loans for county schools; every time you want to build a new school, every time you want to bring a school, on which a loan has been repaid, up to the new standard, you must do it out of revenue," the council scheme for building schools would come to a sudden end. They could not afford to do this work out of revenue. As far as the poorer authorities are concerned, for this and for other purposes the Government have provided a Public Works Loans Board, which makes grants to the poorer local authorities, and they are able to get better terms than they would be able to do if they were forced into the open market, where the big, wealthy authorities can sometimes command very good terms.
Just as the local authorities are our partners in the educational enterprise on which we are embarking, so are the managers and the governors of the denominational schools. What we do for the ones we should do for the others. That is why we welcome the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes). He made some constructive suggestions which will have to be borne in mind by us when we proceed to elaborate this new Clause. We shall be happy to discuss them with him and other hon. Members—

Sir J. Lamb: The hon. and learned Member said that you should not spend money on lawyers.

Mr. Ede: We shall not consult him as a lawyer. He once offered to stake his reputation as a lawyer against us, and he lost. Therefore, we treat him as a brother


layman. We are grateful for these constructive suggestions for we cannot contemplate this Clause being used to perpetuate the single-school area grievance in the 4,000 parishes where it exists. I want to assure my hon. Friends, especially in view of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), that there is no doubt as to what the views of Non-conformists are. I know of no body that expresses the extreme Non-conformist view with greater force and sincerity than the National Educational Association. They wrote to my right hon. Friend before we interviewed any of the parties to these negotiations on 28th February, in these words:
I note that you are to meet Roman Catholic representatives, but I trust that no further financial concessions will be made to them. All the discussions with Free Church representatives were on the basis of a 50 per cent. Exchequer grant and no more. You will recollect that we ourselves suggested the possibility of loans to ease the situation for those who were called upon to raise large sums within a limited number of years, but the suggestion of loans was based upon business principles such as would apply to a local authority raising a loan for large capital expenditure. I feel confident that any plan to grant loans free of interest or at any rate lower than that which might be payable by a local authority would be very keenly resented. I feel that that was made plain at several Free Church deputations.
It is clear that the proposal for loans set forth in the new Clause comply with the requirements that are set out in the last sentences of this letter. This will enable the denominations to play their proper part in the expansion of their education service to which are all looking forward. I welcome the attitude which the official spokesmen of the Free Churches have displayed on this issue, and I trust that it may be met by the Anglican communion in the same spirit as has been shown by these people who have, in writing the kind of letter I have read, made the task of getting this Bill properly administered a great deal easier than it otherwise might have been.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Before we part with the Clause a few words of realism ought to be said in order to redress the balance of what has been said so far. There is no definite guarantee in the Clause that loans will be made or that, if they are made, they will be made on the advantageous terms that have been suggested. I have complete trust in the bona

fides of the President of the Board of Education, but in view of what has been said, that ought to be pointed out. We have an undertaking from the Minister, but it may be that if we had a different President and a different Treasury, the new Clause would not result in any advantageous terms for the churches. We accept this Clause in complete confidence, but I would point out that we are really accepting it in faith, in hope and in charity.

Mr. Brooke: The Parliamentary Secretary made an appeal to which I want to respond. In connection with this Clause I feel rather like a duck that laid an egg and had it taken away from her to be hatched elsewhere, and later unexpectedly met her surprisingly grown up offspring. In those long-ago days when we were debating the Second Reading of the Bill I believe I was the first to throw out a suggestion that a loan scheme might be adopted. Few of our remarks in Second Reading speeches perhaps deserve to see the further light of day, but this is a case where I seem to have been successful. I want to be the first in this discussion to say heartily, "Thank you" to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. I am certain that I speak on behalf of all my Church of England friends when I say that we wish to play a constructive part in helping to get this Clause administered with the objects which the President described and so as to avoid any exacerbation of grievances. The Minister knows that I am not prepared to accept any statement that a grievance exists in each of the 4,000 single-school areas. Having established that, I wish to say that we all want to help and not to hinder, and to say "Thank you" unreservedly.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Hon. Members: Divide.

Commander Bower: I have sat through this Debate and have not spoken, and I promise I will not take more than two minutes. This Bill will affect many millions of people for many years and a short speech will not have a great effect on it. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) talked about the Roman Catholics being satisfied. There are degrees of satisfaction, and on the particular issue our point of view was expressed extremely well by the President himself. He appreciates that this is not for us, and cannot be, a final settlement.


We shall never be satisfied until we get fully into the national system on equal terms with everybody else. As regards this particular proposal, we are satisfied, with one or two reservations, the most important of which is this. The Minister's calculations being based on a 35 per cent. increase in cost between pre-war and postwar, we feel that, if that estimate turns out to be inaccurate and the additional cost is much higher, the Treasury should shoulder the additional burden.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to ensure cleanliness.)

(1) If in the opinion of a medical officer of a local education authority there is reasonable cause to suspect that the person or clothing of a pupil in attendance at any school maintained by the authority or at any young people's college is infested with vermin or in a foul condition he may cause an examination thereof to be made by any person authorised by the authority to make such examinations, and if the person or clothing of the pupil is found by the examination to be infested with vermin or in a foul condition any officer of the authority may serve upon the parent of the pupil, or in the case of a pupil in attendance at a young people's college upon the pupil, a notice requiring him to cause the person and clothing of the pupil to be cleansed.

(2) A notice served under the last foregoing subsection shall inform the person upon whom it is served that unless within the period limited by the notice, not being less than twenty-four hours after the service thereof, the person and clothing of the pupil to whom the notice relates are cleansed to the satisfaction of a medical officer of the authority the cleansing thereof will be carried out under arrangements made by the local education authority; and if at the expiration of that period the person and clothing of the pupil, are not cleansed to the satisfaction of a medical officer of the authority then, subject as hereafter provided, the medical officer may issue an order directing that the person and clothing of the pupil be cleansed under such arrangements:
Provided that, any such notice shall also inform the person upon whom it is served that he may within the period limited by the notice notify the head teacher of the school or college at which the pupil is in attendance that he objects to the cleansing being carried out under arrangements made by the local education authority, and if he does so such an order as aforesaid shall not be issued by the medical officer but an order to the like effect may, on the application of any officer of the authority, be made by a court of summary jurisdiction.

(3) It shall be the duty of the local education authority to make arrangements for securing that any person or clothing required under this section to be cleansed may be cleansed (whether at the request of a parent or pupil or in pursuance of an order issued or made under this section) at suitable premises by suitable persons and with suitable appliances; and where the council of any county district in the area of the authority are entitled to the use of any premises or appliances for cleansing the person or clothing of persons infested with vermin, the authority may require the council to permit the authority to use those premises or appliances for such purposes upon such terms as may be determined by agreement between the authority and the council or, in default of such agreement, by the Minister of Health.

(4) Where an order has been issued by a medical officer or made by a court under this section directing that the person and clothing of a pupil be cleansed under arrangements made by a local education authority, the order shall be sufficient to authorise any officer of the authority to cause the person and clothing of the pupil named in the order to be cleansed in accordance with arrangements made under the last foregoing subsection, and for that purpose to convey him to, and detain him at, any premises provided in accordance with such arrangements.

(5) Any examination of the person or clothing of any pupil may be made under the powers conferred by subsection (1) of this section without the consent of the pupil or of his parent unless the parent, or in the case of a pupil in attendance at a young people's college the pupil, has served upon the local education authority notice in writing requesting that the pupil be exempted from such examinations; but if a medical officer of the local education authority is of opinion that there is reasonable cause to believe that the person or clothing of any pupil with respect to whom such a notice has been served is infested with vermin or in a foul condition, he may, if the parent, or in the case of a pupil in attendance at a young people's college the pupil, refuses to consent to such an examination, cause an application to be made to a court of summary jurisdiction for an order directing that the pupil be examined and, upon such an application made by any officer of the local education authority, the court shall have power to order the examination to be made without such consent.

(6) Where an order has been made by a court of summary jurisdiction for the examination or cleansing of the person or clothing of any pupil, then, if after the cleansing thereof has been carried out under this section his person or clothing is again found upon being examined under this section to be infested with vermin or in a foul condition at any time while he is in attendance at a school maintained by a local education authority or at a young people's college the parent of the pupil, or in the case of a pupil in attendance at a young people's college, the pupil shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds.

(7) Where a medical officer of a local education authority suspects that the person or


clothing of any pupil in attendance at a school maintained by the authority or at any young people's college is infested with vermin or in a foul condition, but action for the examination or cleansing thereof cannot immediately be taken, he may, if he considers it necessary so to do either in the interest of the pupil or of other pupils in attendance at the school or college, direct that the pupil be excluded from the school or college until such action has been taken; and such a direction shall be a defence to any proceeding: under this Act in respect of the failure of the pupil to attend school or to comply with the requirements of a college attendance notice, as the case may be, on any day on which he is excluded in pursuance of the direction, unless it is proved that the issue of the direction was necessitated by the wilful default of the pupil or his parent.

(8) No girl shall be examined or cleansed under the powers conferred by this section except by a duly qualified medical practitioner or by a woman authorised for that purpose by a local education authority.—[Mr. Ede.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It will be recollected that Byron in his description of Napoleon said:
One moment of the mightiest, and the next
On little objects with like keenness fixed.
We now come to a Clause dealing with lice. We asked the Committee to allow us to withdraw Clause 52. We have devoted our efforts to preparing a Clause which will be more workable than the original Clause. This is a very difficult subject with which to deal. It is one of the distressing things of our civilisation that such revelations as were made in the evacuation should be possible in our towns, but the position is well-known to all those who know the facts. I am sure that the Clause which we have put before the Committee will enable the medical services of the various local authorities to do all that is possible at the present time to cope with this evil, and I hope that the Committee will agree that the Clause should be added to the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption from building bye laws of buildings approved by the Minister.)

(1) Section seventy-one of the Public Health Act, 1936 (which provides for the exemption of certain buildings from building byelaws) shall have effect as if for paragraph (a) thereof there were substituted the following paragraph:

(a) any buildings required for the purposes of any school or other educational establishment erected or to be erected according to plans which have been approved by the Minister of Education.

(2) Where plans for any building required for the purposes of any school or other educational establishment are approved by the Minister he may by order direct that any provision of any local Act or of any byelaw made under such an Act shall not apply in relation to the building or shall apply in relation thereto with such modifications as may be specified in the order.—[Mr. Ede.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
My right hon. Friend asked the Committee to delete Clause 61 from the Bill. That Clause would have had the unfortunate effect of putting the exact relationship between the local education authority and the local building authority in respect of the submission and approval of building plans into two separate places in the Bill. By adopting the proposed new Clause the whole of the law with regard this subject is brought into one Clause, so that people who have the task of administering both the education law and the public health law will know exactly where to find the powers each possess, correctly defined.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of local education authorities to make grants to universities and university colleges.)

A local education authority may with the consent of the Minister provide financial assistance to any university or university college for the purpose of improving the facilities for further education available for their area.—[Mr. Ede.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) had an Amendment on the Paper which dealt with the power of a local education authority to provide financial assistance to universities and university colleges. We asked him not to proceed with the Amendment at that stage and promised to put down a new Clause to cover the point. In the proposed new Clause we redeem our promise.

Sir J. Lamb: May I beg to say "Thank you" to the Minister? I do not want to


take up any further time, but I know that the authorities for whom I spoke will be very grateful.

Mr. E. Harvey: Will the Committee allow me to express my gratitude for the Clause? Some universities have not received grants from local authorities and they will be very glad to have them. Many local authorities have not contributed, but I hope the new Clause will encourage them to do so.

Mr. Ede: We all know that it is more blessed to give than to receive. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) is giving and my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) is receiving. Both have arisen to bless me and I therefore feel my lot is a very happy one.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Prohibition of employment of schoolchildren.)

A child shall not be employed on any day on which he is required to attend school.—[Mr. Denman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Denman: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
We are keeping up quite a good pace, and the last thing that I want to do is to slow it down. I must, however, offer a few sentences in support of the proposed new Clause, which proposes that a child shall not be employed on any day when he is required to attend a school. I think there are few subjects on which teachers are so unanimous as on preventing the employment of children of school age. I think we all agree that it is bad for children's education. The hours of education and leisure should occupy the whole day. To try to mix them with employment is not beneficial to education. Employment, such as delivering newspapers or milk, perhaps in very inclement weather, must tend to the tiredness of the child. A very great deal more care is now taken in looking after children than used to be the case, but it cannot be advantageous to a child's education that he should have that employment.
Employment of children is practised really because of the poverty of the parents. Parents who can afford to keep children out of employment while attending school do so. We are on the eve of the introduction of family allowances, which will make the last excuse for this employment of school children invalid. Abolition is clearly the next step in our employment policy. We have advanced towards greater care of childhood by a series of stages. It is our practice to try things out by experiment and by means of varying by-laws which are intended to correspond with the circumstances of different districts, but by now we have accumulated enough experience to warrant our saying that the experimental stage is over and that employment of children should no longer find a place in the school day.

Earl Winterton: I should like to resist the Clause on the ground that it is wholly and completely impracticable in time of war. By a most curious coincidence the same Clause was brought up on the Education Bill of 1918. I happened to be home on leave at the time, the only case in which I was in this House during that war, and I asked the then House of Commons how they really supposed that, when all over Europe children of 12 and 14 were working in the fields, we could ask people in this country, when there was such a shortage of labour, to prevent children performing the task of delivering newspapers in the morning. The thing is simply impracticable in war-time. In peace-time there is a different question to be put. I do not know what the representative of the Home Office will say, but I cannot imagine anything which would be more calculated to bring the law into contempt than to pass the Clause. It would be disregarded in every town in the country.

Mr. Denman: May I interrupt for one moment? Of course the Clause is intended to come in with the employment Clauses in the region of Clauses 56 and 57 and is not intended to operate until Part II is in force. I think the earliest is in April next year, when presumably the war will be over.

Earl Winterton: I am dealing with the Clause as it stands. The courts are not concerned with the intentions of Parliament. If the hon Member says that the Clause is not to come into operation until


after the war, and that is embodied in the wording I shall have nothing more to say. As the Clause reads, it comes into operation now, and I say that the thing is impracticable and will not be carried out. If I pursued this matter I should be out of Order, but I must say that I think before this war is over we shall be calling up people of 16 and 60, such is the manpower and woman-power shortage to-day. Therefore, you cannot apply a thing of this kind, which I agree would be admirable in peace-time and which I should support most strongly.

Mr. Denman: I agree.

Earl Winterton: Then why put it in?

Commander Bower: I hope that the proposed new Clause will be resisted, not for the reasons advanced by the noble Lord opposite, but because I think it is impracticable and therefore undesirable in war or peace. The example has been given of the newsagents, so many of whom are what are called "little men," who rely entirely upon school children to do small news distribution rounds year in and year out on their way to school and who simply love doing it for the little reward they get. Quite apart from that, I suggest to the Committee that this is one of these intolerable interferences with the liberty of the subject which many of us are determined to fight to the death, both now and after the war.

Mr. Lindsay: This is not the moment to debate this question. I have expressed my views publicly in a letter, but I am simply horrified to hear the views expressed by, among other people, my Noble Friend. We are not thinking in terms of this Bill coming into operation now. I have said so time after time. We are thinking of after the war, and of getting this provision written into the Bill. As for the argument put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend, does he really think that the liberty of the subject is being injured by not sending little children—[Interruption.] Those I am talking about are little children. I say that persons who normally talk in this way do not recommend that their own children should be employed for gain at this hour of the day. I, at any rate, say this with some sense of satisfaction, that since on an earlier Clause of this Bill, I made reference to a village where I happen to be

living and where this is going on, the mere publicity has since stopped it. The little bay concerned subsequently told me that he was extremely tired, getting up at 4 a.m. It is no use pretending that there is a teacher in the country who wants to see this kind of thing going on, before and after school, in peace time. I am not talking about holidays, but of the periods before and after school, and on that I should have thought that the case was made. I do not wish to take up any more time now, but I ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to give us something more than the negative answer he gave us to-day. If he can say anything, which will indicate that the Home Office, like his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the other day in another matter, is showing a spirit of investigation and inquiry, if he can give us any sort of inkling that he will help us, we shall be satisfied. But we cannot go on as we are going on at the moment.

Mr. R. Morgan: As an ex-teacher who had charge of a large number of boys at a bluecoat school, I know something about this subject. I am quite sure that if the Noble Lord had had the same experience as I have had with poor boys and found them coming to school tired out—

Earl Winterton: I said I was in agreement with this after the war. I challenge the hon. Member to say that during the war, in view of what our Allies are doing, a child should not be employed in some way during the war. Let him say so if that is his view. If he does say so he will not be very popular with the Press.

Mr. Morgan: I am not concerned with popularity, either inside or outside the Committee. The mover of the new Clause made it clear that he did not expect this prohibition at the present time. He went out of his way to say that it would not come into effect until 1947, when we all hope that the war will be over. Some Members have spoken against the Clause in so drastic a fashion but the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) was perfectly right. You will not get a single teacher of experience in any kind of school you like who will say that it is a good thing for a boy to get up at 5.30 in the morning to go to work before school. Nor, if he does work at night, can he be


expected to be bright and able to take advantage of the education put before him in the morning. I feel very strongly about this. I am anxious to see this Bill go through, and I am hoping that the representative of the Home Office will to-day give us some reassurance on this point.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I took a small part in the earlier Debate on this issue on a previous Clause, and I understood then that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education was going as a result of that Debate to have a talk with the representatives of the Home Office, the Department responsible for the employment of children. I hope therefore that the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Home Office will have something acceptable to tell us. There is no suggestion from the supporters of this Clause that we should disturb the present arrangements during the war; we are talking about what should be done when the war is over. The Bill itself presupposes that very few if any of its major provisions will come into operation until hostilities cease. I would like to challenge the hon. and gallant Gentleman who said that the children love this work. I happen to live in Lancashire, where not very many years ago exactly the same sort of argument was employed about the children working half time in the textile mills. When we advocated the abolition of that half-time system, all the arguments were used then that we have heard to-day against this Clause. It was said that the children liked working halftime, and that the parents would condemn those who voted for the abolition of the system. Yet, when it was abolished we never heard a word of protest from any parent, and certainly not from any child.
I am sure I can carry every Member with me when I say that it is not sufficient for the Home Office to issue model by-laws covering the employment of school children. One of my complaints is, that there is no effective instrument in being to implement these by-laws when they have been adopted by a local education authority. The right hon. Gentleman knows well that before the war, and more so during the war, children under 11 years of age have been gainfully employed, and that in some agricultural districts children of eight and nine years of age have been so employed in agricul-

ture, contrary to the by-laws. Information was supplied to us about one agricultural district where the school managers who closed the school for potato lifting were the farmers who employed the children, and the very same farmers were also the magistrates who ought to see to the prosecution of those who violated the by-laws. The Home Office has an excellent record in connection with employment in factories; it would not for a moment allow the Factory Act to be violated as the model by-laws in connection with school children have been violated.

Sir P. Hannon: I intervene to support my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton). I have received a number of communications from newsagents, for example, asking that the facilities already existing for the employment of school children in the distribution of newspapers shall be retained. I am the last person who would suggest abnormal employment of school children against the opportunities of education, but I agree with my Noble Friend that, during the progress of the war, with a shortage of man-power and the difficulty which small traders have in the distribution of their goods to their customers, we ought not to embody an Amendment of this kind in the Bill. No doubt the hon. Member feels strongly about it, and so do I, but we are dealing with abnormal conditions during the war.

Mr. E. Harvey: I would point out the fact that Clause 108 governs the commencement of the different parts of the Bill, and the only parts that come into force on its passing are Parts I and V. This Clause, if adopted, could not possibly come under Part I, which deals with purely general matters. Neither could it come under Part V. It would have to come in under one of the Clauses in connection with Part II, and thus could not possibly come into force until a year and a half from now, or something like that. Quite clearly, it could not come into force while the European war was going on. The important thing is that we should secure in the Bill itself proper provision for the education of children, and you cannot educate children under satisfactory conditions if they are employed for gain during the period of their school work in a way in which many children are now. We have had the case of the newspaper


boys. Some of them are glad to earn the money for their families, but anyone who has been out in the early hours of a winter morning, and has seen a little lad going along in sleet and snow delivering papers—then having to go to school immediately afterwards without the opportunity of a hot meal—will realise that that boy will not get education under conditions such as we would wish our own children to enjoy. We ought to safeguard the future education of the children. I hope the Under Secretary of State will make it clear—if he takes the line that he took previously that this is not the place, in an Education Bill—that the Government are going to deal with this matter in the near future in the interests of the health of the children and, from the point of view of this Committee, in the interests of the education of the children. We cannot go on satisfactorily if present conditions are indefinitely prolonged. Employment clearly means gainful employment, and it does not mean the voluntary help given by children to their parents or others.

Mr. Colegate: Does the hon. Member mean, when he talks of children helping their parents voluntarily, that a farmer is not allowed to give a little gift to children who help with the hay or corn harvests?

Mr. Harvey: If it is a free gift or tip, it is another matter, but the important thing is to prevent the exploitation of child labour and the over-working of children while they are still in the stage of education. I hope the Government will meet my hon. Friend's urgent plea. He has been working for this for many years and I hope he may have a satisfactory assurance.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): We have had a good humoured Debate on what is often a very controversial subject. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education promised, when Clause 57 was before the Committee, that he would consult his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary with view to making some further statement when a new Clause on this question was before the Committee. The Government are in full agreement with the view that the raising of the educational standards should involve corresponding changes in the legal provi-

sions relating to the employment of school children. There is a Memorandum produced by the Trades Union Congress on Education after the War in which the following principle is stated:
Industrial questions should not be allowed to determine educational policy. Let the greatest possible educational advance be secured then let industrial practice be adapted to the new educational situation.
The Government endorse this principle. Consideration has therefore been given to these two questions: first, what modification in the existing law relating to employment should be embodied in the Education Bill, and secondly, what would be the most expeditious procedure for devising and effecting further changes of a kind which could not properly be incorporated in the Bill. The existing law is contained in Part II of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, which prohibits the employment of children under 12 altogether and provides, as regards children between 12 and 14, that their employment should be subject to restrictions imposed partly by Statute and partly by local by-laws.
In the Bill now before the Committee it is proposed to amend this Section so as to raise the age of prohibition from 12 to 13, when the school-leaving age is raised to 15, and consequently to subject children between the ages of 13 and 15 to the restrictions which now apply to children between 12 and 14, and similarly, when the school-leaving age is raised to 16, the minimum age will become 14. When this Bill becomes law there will still remain two questions, whether the restrictive provisions which now apply to children between the ages of 12 and 14, and which in future will apply to children between 13 and 15, are sufficient, and what further limits should be imposed on children in the last two years that they spend at school. We recognise that the existing provisions require to be overhauled, but there is, of course, diversity of opinion on what ought to be done. There was a correspondence in "The Times" in the early months of this year in which very diverse views were expressed, and I see also on the Order Paper of this House there are four or five new Clauses, all providing different solutions.
I would impress upon hon. Members that it is not such a simple issue as it appears. You cannot dismiss it, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) dismissed it


the other day, by getting up and waving your hand and saying, "Who would pretend to defend any children working either before or after school hours?" The Act of 1933 actually and expressly prohibits any child from working before school hours, and does so in terms. Subsection (1) says that no child shall be employed before the close of school hours on any day on which he is required to attend school. It goes on in a subsequent Sub-section to provide that local authorities may make by-laws permitting one hour of employment before school. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to put it that way, but the fact remains that the Statute law prohibits this and it is only by taking positive action that local authorities can sanction one hour's employment. Now for reasons with which I am not very familiar, the fact is that 217 out of 316 local authorities have made by-laws permitting an hour's employment before school and the local authorities, of course, remit these questions to their education committees.
Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman asks, "Is anybody prepared to defend that?" there is not the slightest doubt that large numbers of local representatives on local education committees seem to think that it is not bad for the child. There is, of course, this aspect of the question which may be one of the points present to their minds. Personally, I do not like the idea of any child going to work before school, but they may think that it is preferable for one boy to deliver 80 newspapers round a street rather than for 30 or 40 householders each to send a child, perhaps of a much more tender age than the boy employed in this case, to go and fetch the newspaper from the newsagents. It is quite clear that this is a difficult and thorny question. It raises in a new form the question to which the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey) referred, and that is the definition of employment. Employment is defined in the Children and Young Persons Act and the Definition Clause reads as follows:
A person who assists in a trade or occupation carried on for profit shall be deemed to be employed notwithstanding that he receives no reward for his labour.
This wide definition was adopted because it was thought undesirable that children should be employed in the business of

their parents or relatives, and not subject to any of the restrictions applied to wage-earning children. Take the example of the newsagent of whom I was speaking just now. Unless the definition had been of this kind, he could have sent his own child to deliver the newspapers. Although this wide definition has great advantages in the way of facilitating the enforcement of the law, it also has the effect of extending the law to occupations of a harmless and a casual kind. If, for example, a farmer's son is sent to feed chickens or to collect eggs, or the daughter of a boarding-house keeper lays the table for the lodgers, that is employment within the meaning of this Act and any general provision that prohibits the employment of children on school days would inevitably have consequences which the promoters of this Clause would not, I think, intend or approve. It would prevent, as I have said, children on farms helping their parents in quite normal, useful and innocent tasks. It is clear, therefore, that some further consideration must be given to the definition of employment before any sweeping provisions prohibiting the employment of school children could be adopted, and when this question is examined, it would also seem right to examine the question of the employment of school children not only on school days but in school holidays. As regards employment during holidays, the existing law leaves the restrictive provisions almost entirely to local bodies, and further measures ought to be considered for imposing suitable limits on holiday employment. In this matter also—

The Chairman: The question of school holidays does not arise on this new Clause.

Mr. Peake: I cannot quite pass from it, Major Milner. In this matter, total prohibition would obviously present difficulties, if only because war has shown that school holiday camps for children—

The Chairman: But the question really does not arise here. Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly pass from it, as I understood he was doing.

Mr. Peake: I will, but there are, of course, other Clauses which I thought were not going to be called and hon. Members are interested in them as well.

The Chairman: But the right hon. Gentleman must appreciate that it would be


passing on to a matter which is not referred to in the Clause under discussion.

Mr. Peake: Well, Major Milner, I will conclude by saying that this is a matter which calls for further inquiry, and the Home Secretary proposes to review the whole question of the law relating to the employment of children as expeditiously as possible, with a view to preparing the way for some amending legislation.

Mr. Denman: I must thank my right hon. Friend for his speech. Obviously, the subject is very complex and my only excuse for the shortness of the Clause is that I did not want to occupy too much of the Order Paper. I realised that if it were accepted something more would have to be added, but I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for saying that the matter will be explored, with a view to early legislation if it is found necessary after further inquiry. I am sure every one will welcome the opportunity to give all the assistance possible.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Travelling Expenses.)

A local education authority may defray any expenses necessarily incurred—

(a) by members of the local education authority; or
(b) by members of any committee or subcommittee of the local education authority; or
(c) by members of any divisional executive constituted under Part III of the First Schedule to this Act—
in travelling to and from meetings of the local education authority, committee, sub-committee or divisional executive or in travelling by direction of the local education authority, committee, sub-committee or divisional executive for the purpose of discharging any functions conferred upon the local education authority by this Act.—[Sir J. Lamb.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir J. Lamb: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
As I hope to receive a favourable reply from the Minister, I will not argue a case for this Clause.

Mr. Butler: I am advised that the motive of my hon. Friend in moving this new Clause is quite unexceptionable. His desire is to see that people serving on divisional executives should have their travelling expenses paid, but I am also advised that the matter affects local

government legislation generally and that it would be out of Order for me to try to deal with it in this Bill. With a view, however, to seeing whether there can be some easement in the position of those serving on divisional executives I will consider the position.

Sir J. Lamb: In view of that reply, which is somewhat qualified, I would like to point out that I could have made a long speech to justify this Clause. However, I accept the undertaking that the matter will be inquired into, and perhaps there will be another opportunity for me to justify what I could have said had I chosen to do so.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Part of school life abroad.)

In fulfilling their duties under this Act a local education authority shall have regard to the desirability of securing that all pupils whose parents so desire shall spend part of their school life abroad, whether by reciprocal arrangements with schools overseas or otherwise.—[Mr. Ivor Thomas.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Bill proposes to extend the concept of education beyond instruction in reading, writing and arithmetic, and what is here proposed is a further extension to include residence and travel abroad. I advocate this on two grounds. The first is educational. As most of us know, a period of travel abroad has more educational value than many years of study although I will not enlarge upon the subject, because it is familiar to us all. My second reason is on the ground of international relations. Some people think that the best way of bringing nations together is to keep them apart, but I am not of that view. I think an exchange of children between one country and another would be a good means of fostering good international relations. This is a field where gifted pioneers have as always led the way; there have been a good many experiments already in the exchange of children between this country and other countries. I think the time has now come when we might, not make a statutory obligation, but at least give a statutory direction to local education authorities.

Mr. Lindsay: Some time ago it was possible for local education authorities to assist pupils going to Canadian universities under a scheme of which I was then secretary. I am not sure whether a similar arrangement is possible for local education authorities to make reciprocal arrangements with other countries.

Sir Herbert Williams: I am delighted to hear the two hon. Members advocating the principle of strength through joy. This, of course, is a silly Clause. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) says that pounds, shillings and pence do not matter. But they will, as soon as people begin to wake up. I do not know how long these people are to spend abroad, but it is going to cost a great deal of money and, if there is to be any sense of justice, this has got to be extended to a very large number of children. First, their fares will have to be paid. Then there may be some difficulty about where they are to go. It may be Moscow or Berlin, or even the United States. Obviously, if this meant anything serious, it would involve the expenditure of tens of millions of pounds per annum. Otherwise, it is a fraud, and I do not think people should urge things which are, financially, frauds. We want a much greater sense of financial responsibility than I see exhibited by a great many hon. Members.

Mr. Ede: I have listened to the discussion with some interest. This is a scheme which has been going on for some years and I hope it will continue. I do not think it necessary to put anything in the Bill about it, because it is well within the statutory powers of local education authorities, and in fact they now carry out the arrangement. After all, it is very desirable, if a young fellow has been learning a foreign language, that he should have an opportunity of seeing how far he can get in the country whose language he has been learning when he is on his own resources. I recollect standing by the side of a lake in Austria when a youth on a bicycle came up to me and spurted out a vast flow of German. I said, "If you would only speak English I might be able to understand you." He had been sent to the Continent by a local education authority, who gave him a grant when he showed the itinerary that he proposed to follow. There have also been the re-

ciprocal arrangements which have been referred to. All these things are valuable, and I hope that local authorities who have some sense of proportion, will use this particular educational machine on an appropriate scale.

Mr. Thomas: In view of my hon. Friend's sympathetic reply I ask leave to withdraw the new Clause. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) is obviously out of touch with educational methods.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Independent denominational secondary secondary schools.)

An independent denominational secondary school not receiving a grant from the Board of Education or from the local education authority, but which the Minister is satisfied could have qualified as a non-provided school had there been provision for the maintenance by local educational authorities of non-provided secondary schools prior to the passing of this Act may nevertheless be considered as a controlled or aided auxiliary school under the terms of this Act.—[Sir Austin Hudson.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Sir Austin Hudson: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I want to try to get an undertaking from the Minister to bring in a school which is, I believe, unique. It is the Jewish secondary school at North Hackney and Stoke Newington, which has now been evacuated. It was in comparatively unsuitable premises before the war, and for that reason was unable to qualify as an aided school. It has had a great deal of Jewish money spent on it—something like £100,000. Immediately the war is over, the Jewish community—it is the only higher school of the Jewish community—want to rebuild it. The only way, it seems to us, in which we could get this school in under the Bill was to put down a new Clause. I agree that the Minister will not be able to accept it in its present terms, but I should appreciate from him an undertaking that when this school, which is unique, is rebuilt after the war, it will be able if possible to qualify for the 50 per cent. grant. I can assure him that the members of the Jewish community will find the other 50 per cent. Since the war started, it has been doing good work and has had a capitation fee from the Government for refugees. It has


an excellent educational history behind it, with 90 per cent. successes. If the Minister will look sympathetically on this new Clause, or tell me where in the Bill I can bring the school in, I shall be more than obliged.

Mr. Butler: There has never been anything to prevent a secondary school applying for recognition as a grant-aided school. It would be impossible to accept a Clause which gives special treatment to one particular type of secondary school. I will try to relieve my hon. Friend's mind. I am aware of the school and the excellent principles of the school, and would not like to do anything to prejudice it in any way, but would rather encourage the hon. Member and his friends. All secondary schools which, in the past, have been aided by local education committees with deficiency grants will, if they wish to become auxiliary schools, have to apply under Sub-section (3) of Clause 12. A school such as the hon. Member has in mind would under that provision be able to apply for grant. It would have to give notice of the proposal, and before accepting any school not previously recognised as a grant-aided secondary school we should have to be satisfied that in regard to its premises and in other respects it is satisfactory. This would apply equally to the school which the hon. Member has in mind. Sympathetic consideration will be given to any proposal that may be put forward in regard to this school or others in similar circumstances. It should be borne in mind that under Clause 10 the local education authority, in preparing their development plan, have to consider which schools are necessary. In this case it would be an auxiliary school concerned and the local education authority would have to consider which schools are necessary as auxiliary schools. In the circumstances, the best advice I can give the hon. Member is to advise his friends to get in touch with the local education authority in whose area the school is situated so that at an early date they may stake out a claim for their school, which is one well known to the Board.

Sir A. Hudson: I am much obliged to the Minister, and in the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Clerical help.)

It shall be the duty of every local education authority to provide in every school maintained by it, whether county or auxiliary, adequate clerical help so as to relieve the teaching staff of as much clerical and administrative work as possible and the salaries and expenses arising out of such clerical help shall be borne by the local education authority.—[Mr. Ivor Thomas.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of the new Clause is to ensure that there shall be a full-time clerk, or adequate clerical assistance in every school. Since I put the new Clause down there has been a great deal of support for it from the teaching profession. The volume has surprised me, and I am inclined to think that teachers are even more concerned over this than over the question of salaries. There has been, in recent years, a great increase in clerical and administrative duties in schools. These duties are daily, weekly, monthly and annual. Here is a list of daily duties in the elementary schools of my consituency: Registration; checking milk and canteen numbers; the receiving, checking and signing of forms for meals; completing canteen helpers' time sheets; entering attendances on free milk and meals register; filling in cards for children attending the school clinic; attending to correspondence; making entries in the book of the Scripture lesson subject taken, hymn sung and length of lesson. I am not surprised that one headmistress says that, generally, she cannot get to her school work till the afternoon, when the children usually greet her with a pointed "Good-morning, headmistress." There has been a great increase in this burden, and teachers are anxious that they should be kept free for the work for which they were trained. It is true that it is in the power of local authorities to provide clerical assistance already, but here, as in several other matters, the time has come to bring up the lagging authorities to the average standard. For those reasons I hope that the President will see fit to make it a statutory direction.

Mr. Ede: Undoubtedly clerical work in schools has increased, partly owing to war conditions, some of which will disappear with the war, but there will undoubtedly


be a more elaborate form of organisation gradually coming into the schools. We have never objected to local education authorities employing clerical assistance in the schools if they think fit. We have gone even further than that, and have issued an administrative memorandum, saying that where it is required it should be supplied, and that any reasonable salaries paid in connection with it will rank for grant. To make it obligatory that there should be clerical help in every school, would be going a great deal too far, but my hon. Friend can rest assured that our influence is all in the direction of seeing that teachers spend as much of their time as possible on their appropriate tasks. Where, therefore, clerical assistance is

really needed, we hope that it will be supplied.

Mr. Thomas: The answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary greatly helps the object I hoped to achieve. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered:
That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Drewe.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved:
That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Drewe.]